Short-term rhG-CSF priming before chemotherapy does mobilize blood progenitors but does not prevent chemotherapy induced myelotoxicity: a randomized study of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphomas

Cardiovascular adverse events in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with first-line cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP with rituximab (R-CHOP): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients treated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma are at risk of cardiovascular adverse events, with the risk of heart failure being particularly high. A regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone, with (R-CHOP) or without (CHOP) rituximab is the standard first-line treatment for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide are both associated with left ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the cardiovascular toxicity of this regimen.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to June 3, 2019, for clinical trials and observational studies in adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma not otherwise specified) that received first-line treatment with R-CHOP or CHOP. Studies reporting on cardiovascular adverse events and treatment-related cardiovascular mortality were included. Abstracts and articles not written in English were excluded. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with grade 3-4 cardiovascular adverse events and heart failure. Meta-analyses of one-sample proportions were done in all patients receiving CHOP or R-CHOP. Subgroup analyses on summary estimates were done to determine the effect of number of CHOP or R-CHOP cycles, cycle interval, age, and sex.

FINDINGS

Of 2314 identified entries, 137 studies (21 211 patients) published between April, 1984, and June, 2019 were eligible (9541 patients treated with CHOP, 11 293 patients treated with R-CHOP, 377 both regimens used in the study; median follow-up 39·0 months [IQR 25·5-52·8]). From the included studies, 85 subgroups were treated with CHOP, 76 with R-CHOP, and in four studies both CHOP and R-CHOP were used without a subdivision in separate groups. The pooled proportion for grade 3-4 cardiovascular adverse events, based on 77 studies (n=14 351 patients), was 2·35% (95% CI 1·81-2·93; heterogeneity test Q=326·21; τ²=0·0042; I²=71·40%; p<0·0001). For heart failure, the pooled proportion, based on 38 studies (n=5936 patients), was 4·62% (2·25-7·65; heterogeneity test Q=527·33; τ²=0·0384; I²=95·05%; p<0·0001), with a significant increase in reported heart failure from 1·64% (95% CI 0·82-2·65) to 11·72% (3·00-24·53) when cardiac function was evaluated post-chemotherapy (p=0·017). 53 (39%) of 137 studies were rated as having high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and 54 (39%) for selective reporting.

INTERPRETATION

The considerable increase of reported heart failures with cardiac monitoring, indicates that this complication often remains undiagnosed in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received first-line R-CHOP or CHOP. Our findings are of importance to raise awareness of this complication among clinicians treating patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and stresses the need for cardiac monitoring during and after chemotherapy. Prompt initiation of treatment for heart failure in the presymptomatic phase can mitigate the progression to more advanced heart failure stages.

FUNDING

None.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by prophylactic antibiotics plus or minus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13.

RESULTS

In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1.

CONCLUSION

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Timely Withdrawal of G-CSF Reduces the Occurrence of Thrombocytopenia During Dose-dense Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Post chemotherapy Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces leucopenia, while G-CSF priming shortly before chemotherapy increases myelotoxicity. We performed a trial with a two-schedule crossover design to determine the optimal G-CSF schedule for densified 2-weekly chemotherapy.

METHODS

During 2-weekly chemotherapy days 1 and 2, G-CSF was given on days 3-10, with a G-CSF-free interval before the next chemotherapy cycle of 5 days, or on days 3-13, with a G-CSF-free interval of 2 days. In schedule A, cycle II was preceded by a 5 days, cycle III and IV by a 2 days and cycle V by a 5 days G-CSF free interval. In schedule B, this was 2, 5, 5, and 2 days, respectively.

RESULTS

Intra-patient comparison for cycles II versus III and cycles IV versus V showed that platelet (PLT) nadir count was significantly lower for cycles preceded by a 2-days compared to a 5-days G-CSF free interval: mean difference 45.7 x 10(9)/l (95% CI 33.2-58.2, p = 0.0001). Neutrophil count did not differ significantly (p = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Timely withdrawal of G-CSF in dose-dense chemotherapy reduces chemotherapy-related thrombocytopenia. Leucopenia was not aggravated, reflecting a protective effect of post-chemotherapy G-CSF.

Clinical practice and future needs in recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment: a review of randomized trials in clinical haemato-oncology

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF) may have a significant impact on preventing infections associated with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, as well as shortening time to tree lineage engraftment following high-dose chemotherapy and progenitor transplantation. However, the scientific literature documenting evidence-based practice is insufficient and often misinterpreted. This review presents data and discusses the evidence for actual clinical practice in the use of rHuG-CSF in conventional cyclic chemotherapy, either prophylactic or therapeutic, and high-dose therapy, either in priming for mobilization or post-transplantation. In the past decade, many reports have based their conclusions on surrogate markers, and it is time to move towards evaluation of clinically relevant factors. Data must be generated prospectively based on current clinical practice, and several issues must be considered and evaluated to define the true clinical benefit of rHuG-CSF with or without stem-cell support. Evaluation should include complications and needs for resources as well as impact on toxicity and efficacy of conventional or high-dose chemotherapy.

A predictive model for life-threatening neutropenia and febrile neutropenia after the first course of CHOP chemotherapy in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The purpose of this study was to develop a model for predicting the occurrence of life-threatening neutropenia (LN, ANC < or = 0.5 x 10(9)/l) and febrile neutropenia (FN, an ANC < 0.5x10(9)/l in association with a body temperature of > or = 38.3 degrees C) after the first cycle of CHOP therapy in patients newly diagnosed with aggressive NHL. One hundred and forty-five patients, aged > or = 15 years, with newly diagnosed diffuse mixed, diffuse large-cell or large-cell immunoblastic lymphoma (IWF categories, F, G, H), who had been treated with CHOP at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between June 1994 and December 1998, were entered into the study. The criteria for eligibility included complete work-up for baseline evaluation, treatment with standard CHOP chemotherapy, at least one complete blood count performed during days 8-14 post-treatment or if at any time the patients experienced a BT of > or = 38.3 degrees C and were not treated with any colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). The median age of the patients was 47 years (range, 17-78). Forty-eight percent of the patients were in stage III/IV, 36% had ECOG performance status (PS) II-IV, 30% had > or = 2 extranodal diseases, 59% had serum LDH > 1 x normal and 23% had bone marrow involvement. The frequencies of patients in the low-, low-intermediate, high-intermediate and high risk groups according to the international index were 29%, 28%, 17% and 26%, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of the patients had LN at nadir and 33% developed FN after the first course of CHOP. By using stepwise logistic regression analysis, the pretreatment variables independently predictive of the LN at nadir and the FN were serum albumin concentration of < or = 3.5 g/dl, serum LDH > 1 x normal and whether there was bone marrow involvement of lymphoma at presentation. The model, based on the incorporation of these three factors, identified three risk groups of patients with a predicted probability of developing LN at nadir of 81.5% (95% CI, 68.5-90.7) (high risk), 23.9% (95% CI, 12.6-38.8) (intermediate risk) and 4.4% (95% CI, 0.5-15.1) (low risk). The predicted rate of FN in the three groups were 72.2% (95% CI, 58.4-83.5), 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8-31.4) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.05-11.8), respectively. In conclusion, our model could be used as a means to identify patients with newly diagnosed aggressive NHL, treated with CHOP, who are at high risk (> or = 50% probability) of developing post-first course LN and FN, in whom CSF and/or antibiotic prophylaxis might be indicated.