Advantages with prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy: an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study
Jie Xie,Jun Cao,Jing-Fen Wang,Bai-Hong Zhang,Xiao-Hua Zeng,Hong Zheng,Yang Zhang,Li Cai,Yu-Dong Wu,Qiang Yao,Xiao-Chun Zhao,Wei-Dong Mao,Ai-Mei Jiang,Shao-Shui Chen,Shun-E Yang,Shu-Sen Wang,Jian-Hong Wang,Yue-Yin Pan,Bi-Yong Ren,Yan-Ju Chen,Li-Zhi Ouyang,Kai-Jian Lei,Jing-Hua Gao,Wen-He Huang,Zhan Huang,Tao Shou,Yan-Ling He,Jing Cheng,Yang Sun,Wei-Ming Li,Shu-de Cui,Xin Wang,Zhi-Guo Rao,Hu Ma,Wei Liu,Xue-Yong Wu,Wei-Xi Shen,Fei-Lin Cao,Ze-Min Xiao,Biao Wu,Shu-Yan Tian,Dong Meng,Peng Shen,Bi-Yun Wang,Zhonghua Wang,Jian Zhang,Leiping Wang,Xi-Chun Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4609-6
Abstract:Background: PEG-rhG-CSF reduces neutropenia and improves chemotherapy safety. In China's registration trial (CFDA: 2006L01305), we assessed its efficacy and safety against rhG-CSF, and prospectively explored its value over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. Methods: In this open-label, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study, breast cancer patients (n = 569) were randomized to receive PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg, PEG-rhG-CSF 6 mg, or rhG-CSF 5 µg/kg/d after chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycles 2-4, the incidence of febrile neutropenia, and the safety. Results: A once-per-cycle PEG-rhG-CSF at either 100 µg/kg or 6 mg was not different from daily injections of rhG-CSF for either incidence or duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia. Interestingly, a substantial difference was noted during cycle 2, and the difference became bigger over cycles 3-4, reaching a statistical significance at cycle 4 in either incidence (P = 0.0309) or duration (P = 0.0289) favoring PEG-rhG-CSF. A significant trend toward a lower incidence of all-grade adverse events was noted at 129 (68.98%), 142 (75.53%), and 160 (82.47%) in the PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg and 6 mg and rhG-CSF groups, respectively (P = 0.0085). The corresponding incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events was 2/187 (1.07%), 1/188 (0.53%), and 8/194 (4.12%), respectively (P = 0.0477). Additionally, PFS in metastatic patients preferred PEG-rhG-CSF to rhG-CSF despite no significance observed by Kaplan-Meier analysis (n = 49, P = 0.153). Conclusions: PEG-rhG-CSF is a more convenient and safe formulation and a more effective prophylactic measure in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy.