Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: Pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials

Renata Ferrarotto, Ian Anderson, Balazs Medgyasszay, Maria Rosario García-Campelo, William Edenfield, Trevor M Feinstein, Jennifer M Johnson, Sujith Kalmadi, Philip E Lammers, Alfredo Sanchez-Hernandez, Yili Pritchett, Shannon R Morris, Rajesh K Malik, Tibor Csőszi, Renata Ferrarotto, Ian Anderson, Balazs Medgyasszay, Maria Rosario García-Campelo, William Edenfield, Trevor M Feinstein, Jennifer M Johnson, Sujith Kalmadi, Philip E Lammers, Alfredo Sanchez-Hernandez, Yili Pritchett, Shannon R Morris, Rajesh K Malik, Tibor Csőszi

Abstract

Background: Supportive care interventions used to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM), including granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, are burdensome to patients and associated with greater costs to health care systems. We evaluated the utilization of supportive care interventions and their relationship with the myeloprotective agent, trilaciclib.

Methods: Data were pooled from three independent randomized phase 2 clinical trials of trilaciclib or placebo administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The impact of supportive care on the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN), and occurrence of RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was analyzed across cycles 1-4. Concordance and association between grade 3/4 anemia, RBC transfusions on/after week 5, and ESA administration was also evaluated.

Results: The use of G-CSFs, ESAs, or RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was significantly lower among patients receiving trilaciclib versus placebo (28.5% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.0001; 3.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0254; and 14.6% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.0252, respectively). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib significantly reduced DSN and SN, irrespective of G-CSF administration. RBC transfusions and ESAs were most often administered in patients with grade 3/4 anemia; however, patients typically received RBC transfusions over ESA administration.

Conclusions: By improving CIM and reducing the need for associated supportive care, trilaciclib has the potential to reduce the burden of myelosuppression on patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447).

Keywords: anemia; erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; neutropenia; red blood cell transfusion; trilaciclib.

Conflict of interest statement

Outside of the submitted work, Renata Ferrarotto has received personal fees from Ayala Pharma, Carevive, Cellestia Biotech, Klus Pharma, Medscape, Prelude, and Regeneron‐Sanofi, and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Inc., Merck, Oropharynx Program Stiefel clinical trials, Pfizer, the ASCO Career Development Award, and the MD Anderson Khalifa Award; William Edenfield serves as a consultant for Chimerix Corp, and Jennifer M. Johnson has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck, and has served as a consultant for Rakuten Medical and Foundation Medicine. Yili Pritchett and Rajesh K. Malik are employees and shareowners of G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Shannon R. Morris was an employee of G1 Therapeutics, Inc., at the time of study. Ian Anderson, Balazs Medgyasszay, Maria Rosario García‐Campelo, Trevor M. Feinstein, Sujith Kalmadi, Philip Lammers, A. Sanchez‐Hernandez, and Tibor Csőszi have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Occurrence of RBC transfusions in cycles 1 to 4 by treatment group. RBC indicates red blood cell

References

    1. Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A, et al; IMpower133 Study Group . First‐line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive‐stage small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2220‐2229.
    1. von Pawel J , Jotte R, Spigel DR, et al. Randomized phase III trial of amrubicin versus topotecan as second‐line treatment for patients with small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:4012‐4019.
    1. Povsic M, Enstone A, Wyn R, Kornalska K, Penrod JR, Yuan Y. Real‐world effectiveness and tolerability of small‐cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments: a systematic literature review (SLR). PLoS One. 2019;14:e0219622.
    1. Paz‐Ares L, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, et al.; CASPIAN Investigators . Durvalumab plus platinum‐etoposide versus platinum‐etoposide in first‐line treatment of extensive‐stage small‐cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1929‐1939.
    1. Trigo J, Subbiah V, Besse B, et al. Lurbinectedin as second‐line treatment for patients with small‐cell lung cancer: a single‐arm, open‐label, phase 2 basket trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:645‐654.
    1. Epstein RS, Aapro MS, Basu Roy UK, et al. Patient burden and real‐world management of chemotherapy‐induced myelosuppression: results from an online survey of patients with solid tumors. Adv Ther. 2020;37:3606‐3618.
    1. Crawford J, Denduluri N, Patt D, et al. Relative dose intensity of first‐line chemotherapy and overall survival in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:925‐932.
    1. Havrilesky LJ, Reiner M, Morrow PK, Watson H, Crawford J. A review of relative dose intensity and survival in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;93:203‐210.
    1. Kogan LG, Davis SL, Brooks GA. Treatment delays during FOLFOX chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10:841‐846.
    1. Puhalla S, Bhattacharya S, Davidson NE. Hematopoietic growth factors: personalization of risks and benefits. Mol Oncol. 2012;6:237‐241.
    1. Corey‐Lisle PK, Desrosiers MP, Collins H, et al. Transfusions and patient burden in chemotherapy‐induced anaemia in France. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2014;6:146‐153.
    1. Bohlius J, Bohlke K, Castelli R, et al. Management of cancer‐associated anemia with erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents: ASCO/ASH clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1336‐1351.
    1. Bisi JE, Sorrentino JA, Roberts PJ, Tavares FX, Strum JC. Preclinical characterization of G1T28: a novel CDK4/6 inhibitor for reduction of chemotherapy‐induced myelosuppression. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:783‐793.
    1. He S, Roberts PJ, Sorrentino JA, et al. Transient CDK4/6 inhibition protects hematopoietic stem cells from chemotherapy‐induced exhaustion. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaal3986.
    1. George J, Lim JS, Jang SJ, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature. 2015;524:47‐53.
    1. Weiss JM, Csoszi T, Maglakelidze M, et al.; G1T28‐02 Study Group . Myelopreservation with the CDK4/6 inhibitor trilaciclib in patients with small‐cell lung cancer receiving first‐line chemotherapy: a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1613‐1621.
    1. Daniel D, Kuchava V, Bondarenko I, et al. Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase II trial. Int J Cancer. 2020;148:2557‐2570.
    1. Hart LL, Ferrarotto R, Andric ZG, et al. Myelopreservation with trilaciclib in patients receiving topotecan for small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase II study. Adv Ther. 2021;38:350‐365.
    1. Weiss J, Goldschmidt J, Zoran A, et al. Effects of trilaciclib on chemotherapy‐induced myelosuppression and patient‐reported outcomes in patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer: pooled results from three phase II randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies. Clin Lung Cancer. 2021; 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.03.010. [online ahead of print].
    1. Weycker D, Hatfield M, Grossman A, et al. Risk and consequences of chemotherapy‐induced thrombocytopenia in US clinical practice. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:151.
    1. Klastersky J, de Naurois J , Rolston K, et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee . Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v111‐v118.
    1. Becker PS, Griffiths EA, Alwan LM, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: hematopoietic growth factors, version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18:12‐22.
    1. Griffiths EA, Alwan LM, Bachiashvili K, et al. Considerations for use of hematopoietic growth factors in patients with cancer related to the COVID‐19 pandemic. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;1–4: [online ahead of print].
    1. Stephens JM, Li X, Reiner M, Tzivelekis S. Annual patient and caregiver burden of oncology clinic visits for granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor therapy in the US. J Med Econ. 2016;19:537‐547.
    1. Bryer E, Henry D. Chemotherapy‐induced anemia: etiology, pathophysiology, and implications for contemporary practice. Int J Clin Transfus Med. 2018;6:21‐31.
    1. Abdel‐Razeq H, Hashem H. Recent update in the pathogenesis and treatment of chemotherapy and cancer induced anemia. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020;145:102837.
    1. Liou SY, Stephens JM, Carpiuc KT, Feng W, Botteman MF, Hay JW. Economic burden of haematological adverse effects in cancer patients: a systematic review. Clin Drug Investig. 2007;27:381‐396.
    1. Epstein RS, Krenitsky J, Weerasinghe RK, Parrish AS, Sanborn RE, Salimi T. Real‐world burden of myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC): retrospective, longitudinal data analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15 suppl):e19300.
    1. Rashid N, Koh HA, Baca HC, Lin KJ, Malecha SE, Masaquel A. Economic burden related to chemotherapy‐related adverse events in patients with metastatic breast cancer in an integrated health care system. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2016;8:173‐181.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner