A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Kimberly Blackwell, Roman Donskih, C Michael Jones, Allen Nixon, Maria J Vidal, Roumen Nakov, Pritibha Singh, Gregor Schaffar, Pere Gascón, Nadia Harbeck, Kimberly Blackwell, Roman Donskih, C Michael Jones, Allen Nixon, Maria J Vidal, Roumen Nakov, Pritibha Singh, Gregor Schaffar, Pere Gascón, Nadia Harbeck

Abstract

Background: Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In highly regulated markets, there are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2) was a confirmatory efficacy and safety study designed to compare proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen) in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Methods: A total of 308 patients were randomized to LA-EP2006 or reference pegfilgrastim. Each patient received TAC (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each cycle, for six or more cycles. Pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 or reference) was given subcutaneously (6 mg in 0.6 mL) on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/L), with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were within a 1-day margin.

Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. DSN was equivalent between groups at mean ± SD 1.36 ± 1.13 (LA-EP2006, n = 155) and 1.19 ± 0.98 (reference, n = 153) in cycle 1. With a treatment difference (reference minus LA-EP2006) of -0.16 days (90% CI -0.36 to 0.04; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.08), LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference pegfilgrastim. Secondary efficacy parameters were similar between groups during cycle 1 and across cycles. Safety profiles were also similar between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or polyethylene glycol were detected.

Conclusion: LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim were therapeutically equivalent and comparable regarding efficacy and safety in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving TAC.

Implications for practice: The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Biosimilars are biologics with similar quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product that may increase the affordability of treatment compared with their reference compounds. There are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim in highly regulated markets. No previous phase III studies have been performed with LA-EP2006. PROTECT-2 was conducted to confirm the similarity of the proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 to pegfilgrastim. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) may benefit oncology patients by offering increased access to biological treatments that may improve clinical outcomes. This means that patients could potentially be treated prophylactically with biologics rather than only after complications have occurred.

Keywords: Biosimilars; Breast cancer; Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; Neutropenia; Pegfilgrastim.

Conflict of interest statement

Author disclosures and references available online.

©AlphaMed Press.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient disposition and analysis sets. All patients who discontinued treatment received at least one cycle of chemotherapy and at least one dose of pegfilgrastim. One additional patient in the reference group experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event with the outcome death. This patient was not recorded as having discontinued treatment and therefore is not included as a discontinuation in this figure. Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; FAS, full analysis set; N, number of patients in a treatment group or analysis set; n, number of patients with an event; PP, per-protocol; SAF, safety analysis set.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Overview of adverse event incidence. Graph shows patients, n (%), with TEAEs and serious events (safety set). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event.

References

    1. Rak Tkaczuk KH, Jacobs IA. Biosimilars in oncology: From development to clinical practice. Semin Oncol. 2014;41(suppl 3):S3–S12.
    1. McCamish M, Woollett G. The state of the art in the development of biosimilars. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91:405–417.
    1. European Medicines Agency . Questions and answers on biosimilar medicines (similar biological medicinal products). EMA/837805/2011. London, U.K.: EMA; 2012.
    1. Hoggatt J, Pelus LM. New G-CSF agonists for neutropenia therapy. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2014;23:21–35.
    1. Biganzoli L, Untch M, Skacel T, et al. Neulasta (pegfilgrastim): A once-per-cycle option for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Semin Oncol. 2004;31(suppl 8):27–34.
    1. Molineux G. The design and development of pegfilgrastim (PEG-rmetHuG-CSF, Neulasta) Curr Pharm Des. 2004;10:1235–1244.
    1. Cooper KL, Madan J, Whyte S, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:404.
    1. Weycker D, Malin J, Barron R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for neutropenic complications in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35:267–274.
    1. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:8–32.
    1. Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, et al. 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3187–3205.
    1. Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, et al. A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:29–35.
    1. Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, et al. Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:727–731.
    1. Holmes FA, Jones SE, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: A multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:903–909.
    1. Nabholtz JM, Reese DM, Lindsay MA, et al. Docetaxel in the treatment of breast cancer: an update on recent studies. Semin Oncol. 2002;29(suppl 12):28–34.
    1. Lambertini M, Del Mastro L, Bellodi A, et al. The five “Ws” for bone pain due to the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;89:112–128.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir