|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
© 2002 American Society for Clinical Oncology Randomized, Controlled, Dose-Range Study of Ro 25-8315 Given Before and After a High-Dose Combination Chemotherapy Regimen in Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Breast Cancer PatientsByFrom the Department of Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille; Institut Curie and Quintiles, Paris; Centre René Huguenin, St Cloud; Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; Hôpital Hautepierre and Quintiles SA, Strasbourg, France; Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, and Amtsgartenweg 13, Badenweiler, Germany; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Basel, Switzerland. Address reprint requests to Patrice Viens, MD, Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, 232 Blvd Sainte Marguerite, 13273 Marseille Cedex 9, France; email: viensp{at}marseille .fnclcc.fr.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of three different dose levels of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (Ro 25-8315) on progenitor cell mobilization and hematologic recovery in cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 36) were randomly assigned to receive before (part I) and after (part II) chemotherapy either a single-dose injection of Ro 25-8315 (20 µg/kg, n = 9; 60 µg/kg, n = 9; 100 µg/kg, n = 10) or a standard daily dose of filgrastim (part I, 10 µg/kg/d; part II, 5 µg/kg/d) (control group, n = 8). RESULTS: Overall, Ro 25-8315 was well tolerated. In part I, more progenitor cell mobilization was observed with Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg. The peak of circulating CD34+ cells was obtained at day +5 in the four groups, and the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) returned to less than 20 x 109/L by day +15. In part II, high levels of circulating CD34+ cells (> 20 cells/µL) were obtained in all four groups. The chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (< 1 x 109/L) was similar in the four groups. Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg was more effective than filgrastim in reducing the number of patients with an ANC less than 0.5 x 109/L on day +12 after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: A single injection of Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg might be the optimal dose for steady-state peripheral-blood progenitor cell mobilization. A single injection of 20, 60, or 100 µg/kg could be as efficient as daily administration of filgrastim to correct chemotherapy-induced cytopenia. The optimal dose of Ro 25-8315 should be determined according to the planned chemotherapy regimen.
GRANULOCYTE COLONY-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is one of numerous cytokines that act on hematopoietic cells and cytokines by specific interactions via its membrane receptor. G-CSF is a hematopoietic growth factor for cells of the neutrophil lineage, although it also displays biologic effects at other stages of hematopoiesis. Produced using gene recombination technology, recombinant human G-CSF (rhG-CSF) was made available to physicians more than 10 years ago.1,2 Initially introduced to reduce chemotherapy (CT)-induced cytopenia, rhG-CSF quickly showed itself to be highly efficient in mobilizing progenitors into adult human peripheral blood.3 Thus, either alone or in association with selected CT regimens, rhG-CSF allowed substitution of autologous bone marrow by autologous apheresis collections, with demonstrated advantages in terms of hematopoietic recovery and transplantation costs.4,5 Administration of rhG-CSF alone at a dose of 10 µg/kg/d for 5 to 7 days or the combination of CT followed by rhG-CSF at a dose of 5 µg/kg/d currently represents the safest method of mobilizing peripheral-blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) for transplantation in cancer patients. Evaluation in the allogeneic setting is ongoing.6,7 Since its commercial introduction, the postmarketing safety surveillance has demonstrated a satisfactory rhG-CSF safety profile. Side effects, including injection site reaction and dose-dependant musculoskeletal pain, remain the most consistently observed adverse events (AEs) across all cancer patients in the major setting of rhG-CSF utilization.2 Because of their short half-lives, both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) rhG-CSF require daily or twice-daily administration. Pegylation of a moiety results in an increase in its half-life, due to reduced degradation. Pegylated G-CSF (Ro 25-8315) is the long-acting polyethylene glycol conjugate of an rhG-CSF in which amino acids have been replaced at five positions of the N-terminal region of the human G-CSF molecule.8,9 Pegylation has resulted in a decrease in the systemic clearance of pegylated proteins, which consequently increases the circulation serum half-life of free proteins.10 Preliminary results in healthy volunteers indicate that the safety profile of Ro 25-8315 is similar to that of other G-CSFs and that Ro 25-8315 is effective in both the stimulation of neutrophil counts and the mobilization of CD34+ progenitor cells (Van der Auwera et al, manuscript submitted for publication). We report here the results of a controlled, randomized, three-dose study of Ro 25-8315 in breast cancer patients receiving a high-dose CT combination regimen for PBPC mobilization.11 The main objective was to characterize the safety profile and efficacy of Ro 25-8315 in cancer patients before and after they received myelosuppressive CT in comparison with filgrastim (recombinant methionyl human G-CSF; Neupogen; Amgen-Hoffman La Roche, Thousand Oaks, CA). Another objective was to define the optimal dose of Ro 25-8315 for treatment of CT-induced neutropenia and the optimal doses for PBPC mobilization when Ro 25-8315 is given alone (steady-state mobilization regimen) and after CT (CT mobilization regimen). In addition, we determined the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different doses of Ro 25-8315 and investigated tumor cell mobilization in a subset of patients.
Patient Eligibility The study was reviewed and approved by the relevant institutional ethics committees, and all patients gave written informed consent before study entry. Patients between 18 and 60 years of age and with histologically proven metastatic or locoregionally recurrent breast cancer were eligible. Eligible patients had to have a Karnofsky performance status score of 70 or higher and comply with phase I study requirements. At entry, an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 1.5 x 109/L, a platelet count of 150 x 109/L, and a hemoglobin level of at least 10 g/dL were required. Patients were not included if they had received (1) CT within 6 months before study entry, (2) more than six cycles of prior CT in adjuvant or metastatic settings, (3) a cumulative dose of doxorubicin greater than 400 mg/m2 and epirubicin greater than 600 mg/m2, and/or (4) prior intensive CT supported by autologous PBPC transplantation. Patients should not have received prior radiotherapy to more than 50% of the bone marrow–active fields. Patients were not enrolled if they had clinically symptomatic CNS metastasis or major renal (serum creatinine > 1.5 times the upper normal limit [UNL]), liver (AST and ALT > 2.5 times UNL, bilirubin > 1.5 times UNL), lung, heart (left ventricular ejection fraction at rest < 50% at echocardiography or < 55% at isotopic measurement), or CNS dysfunction. Other exclusion criteria included active infection, human immunodeficiency virus seropositivity, known allergy to Escherichia coli–derived products, and history of previous malignancy with the exception of curatively treated basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and in situ cervical carcinoma. Patients could not enter the study if they were pregnant, lactating, or of childbearing potential and not using effective contraception. Besides their use as part of an antiemetic multidrug regimen the day after CT administration, use of corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was restricted to clinical situations with no other therapeutic alternatives, because their use was thought to interfere with the pharmacodynamic effect of Ro 25-8315. The concurrent use of cytokines, other hematopoietic growth factors, and prophylactic antibiotics was prohibited during the course of the study.
Study Design
Patients were monitored daily for adverse effects. Vital signs were measured and clinical examinations were performed at regular intervals and when clinically indicated.
Laboratory Studies CD34+ cell enumeration was performed centrally (H. Johnsen, MD, Department of Hematology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark) using a published flow cytometry procedure.12,13 The standard flow cytometry procedure was performed within 24 hours of the sample arriving in the laboratory, using a FACSan cytometer (Becton Dickinson, Mountain View, CA). The antibodies HPCA-2–phycoerythrin (anti-CD34), CD45-fluorescein, immunoglobulin G1–phycoerythrin, and immunoglobulin G1–fluorescein were all purchased from Becton Dickinson. Results were expressed as percentage of mononuclear cells and converted to number of CD34+ cells/mL of blood. The progenitor cell clonogenic assay (colony-forming unit–granulocyte macrophage [CFU-GM]/blast-forming unit, erythroid [BFU-E]) was performed locally at each participating center according to a standard defined procedure: mononuclear cells were separated by centrifugation over a density gradient (Ficoll-Hypaque gradient; Pharmacia, Uppsala, Sweden; d = 1.077). Mononuclear cells were plated in Methocult H4434 methylcellulose medium (Stem Cell Technology, Vancouver, Canada; the same lot number was used at all participating centers) at two cell concentrations (2 x 105 cells/mL and 5 x 105 cells/mL), in triplicate. Colonies were counted at day 14 ± 1, according to published criteria, and results are expressed per 105 mononuclear cells and per milliliter of blood. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated on days +1 to +6 and on day +8 of part I (total of seven samples) and on days +1, +5 to +10, and +12 of part II (total of eight samples). Serum concentrations of Ro 25-8315 were measured by separate sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods (data on assay sensitivity, specificity, linearity, and reproducibility are on file). Pharmacokinetic parameters included maximum serum concentration (Cmax), time of maximum serum concentration (Tmax), area under the serum concentration–time curve (AUC0-168hr), and systemic clearance (Cl) and were estimated with a model-independent approach by using the WIN-NONLIN computer program (Pharsight, NC). Because of insufficient sampling time, the terminal-phase half-life of Ro 25-8315 was estimated on the basis of data only from part I. Circulating breast cancer cells were enumerated on cytocentrifuge slides prepared from peripheral-blood samples from patients at two selected participating centers (Marseilles and Tubingen) by a central laboratory (Laboratory for Molecular Oncology, Micromet GmbH, Munich, Germany). Epithelial cells were identified as cytokeratin-positive cells using the A45-B/B3 monoclonal antibody and immunocytochemistry method (alkaline phosphatase-antialkaline phosphatase technique).14,15 Whenever possible, 4 x 106 cells were examined on cytospin slides.
Statistical Methods Descriptive analyses were performed for all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. Data are expressed as means and/or medians (ranges) for continuous data and as frequencies (percentages) for categorical data, unless otherwise specified. The study was not designed to perform comparative analyses within the four treatment groups.
Patients The characteristics of the 36 randomized patients are listed in Table 2. The groups were well matched for age and disease characteristics. However, patients in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 60-µg groups had received slightly more previous CT and been treated for a longer period of time before they were entered onto the study. Twenty-eight patients were treated with Ro 25-8315 (10, nine, and nine patients in the 100-, 60-, and 20-µg groups, respectively), and eight patients were treated with filgrastim. All patients were entered onto the safety analysis. Thirty-five and 33 patients completed the efficacy analyses of parts I and II, respectively (Table 2): one patient (filgrastim group) developed progressive disease during part I and did not enter part II. One patient (Ro 25-8315 20-µg group) received 10 times the planned dose of Ro 25-8315 during part I. One patient (Ro 25-8315 60-µg group) received cytarabine on day +9 of part II. Eight patients (four patients, three patients, and one patient in the Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively) received a further injection of Ro 25-8315 30 µg/kg for persistent severe neutropenia at day +12 and were censored at that time for the efficacy analysis of part II (subset 1 population analysis) (Table 2).
Duration of CT-Induced Neutropenia in Part II Ro 25-8315 stimulated neutrophil recovery after CT at all three doses of administration. Mean duration of CT-induced neutropenia (ANC < 1 x 109/L) in the censored subset population of patients was 4.7, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.0 days in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively (Table 3). The mean ANCs after CT for patients administered filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 are shown in Fig 1. Ro 25-8315 enhanced the peak ANC recovery in a dose-related manner, with a median peak ANC after nadir of 11.8 x 109/L, 11 x 109/L, 13.3 x 109/L, and 33.6 x 109/L in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively (Table 3). There was no difference in the depth or time of the nadir among any of the cohorts. Twelve (36%) of 33 patients experienced severe neutropenia at day +12 (Table 3): eight (31%) of 26 patients in the Ro 25-8315 groups and four (57%) of seven in the filgrastim group. The duration of neutropenia less than 0.5 x 109/L in patients receiving a second Ro 25-8315 injection after CT was between 5.94 and 7.02 days in the Ro 25-8315 20-µg group (four patients), 5.36 days in the Ro 25-8315 60-µg group (one patient), and 18.37 days in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group (one patient).
Peak of Circulating CD34+ Cells in Parts I and II The median time to reach the peak (maximum cell count per microliter) of circulating CD34+ cells in the blood after treatment with filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 without CT (part I) was the same (day +5) within all the treatment study groups (Table 4, Fig 2). Only patients treated with filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 100 µg reached a median level of CD34+ cells above 20 cells/µL. All patients who received one injection of Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg achieved a peak value  = 25 cells/uL" to "..peak value [greater than or equal to] 25 cells/uL"? If not, please clarify what is meant by "=" in the original text.‘ 25 cells/µL. When filgrastim or Ro 25-8315 was given after CT (part II), a median level of CD34+ cells above 20 cells/µL was obtained in the four treatment groups (Table 5). The kinetics of the CD34+ cells mobilized in the blood after CT failed to demonstrate a clear dose-efficacy relationship between filgrastim and the three doses of Ro 25-8315 (Fig 3), with a median AUC of CD34+ above 20 cells/µL = 100 in.." to ".. a median AUC of CD34+ above 20 cells/uL [greater than or equal to] 100 in.."? If not, please clarify what is meant by "=" in the original text.‘ 100 in three of the four study groups (the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 60- and 100-µg groups) (Table 5).
Progenitor Cell Kinetics Part I. The CFU-GM and BFU-E cells depicted a dose and time-response curve parallel to that of the CD34+ cells, with a median peak count greater in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group than in the filgrastim group and lower in the Ro 25-8315 20- and 60-µm groups than in the filgrastim group (data not shown). The interpatient variability in CD34+ cell results was most marked in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group. Peak values were obtained at days +6, +4.5, +5, and +5 in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively. The median increase in CFU-GM counts over baseline was 27-, 21-, 33-, and 170-fold in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively.
Part II.
Secondary Efficacy End Points
Part II. After CT administration, an ANC response to filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 was observed early at day +6 in all the treatment groups (Fig 1). The mean and median ANC peak values preceding the nadir were higher in the treatment groups than in the filgrastim group, with a positive dose-response correlation but greater interpatient variability in the treatment groups. The time to recovery to an ANC = 1 x 109/L" to "an ANC [greater than or equal to] 1 x 109/L"? If not, please explain what is meant by "=".‘ 1 x 109/L after the post-CT nadir was longer in the filgrastim group than in the Ro 25-8315 groups (Table 3). The ANCs were higher in the Ro 25-8315 groups than in the filgrastim group, with a mean peak ANC after nadir more than three times higher in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group than in the other treatment groups (Fig 1, Table 3). This difference was associated with a higher ANC at day +21 or beyond in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group (median ANC, 14.6 x 109/L) than in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20- and 60-µg groups (median ANCs, 3.0, 2.6, and 4.0 x 109/L, respectively) (Fig 1). Three (9%) of 33 patients in part II of the study experienced a febrile neutropenia episode (one patient in the Ro 25-8315 60-µg group and two patients in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group) on days + 5, +2, and +4 after CT administration. In part II of the study, a higher proportion of patients was treated with IV antibiotics in the Ro 25-8315 groups (six [75%], four [50%], and six [60%] patients in the Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively) than in the filgrastim group (four patients [50%]). Median duration of IV antibiotics use was 3.5 (range, 3 to 4), 6 (range, 2 to 12), 5 (range, 3 to 7), and 4.5 (range, 2 to 6) days in the filgrastim and Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg groups, respectively (all patients). There was no difference among the treatment groups with regard to the delay (median, 1 day in each cohort) in starting a subsequent cycle of CT.
Tumor Cell Circulation
Safety
Pharmacokinetics Pharmacokinetic parameters are summarized in Table 8 and concentration-versus-time graphs are shown in Figs 6 and 7. Pharmacokinetic analyses were based on seven, seven, and nine patients for the Ro 25-8315 20-, 60-, and 100-µg/kg dose groups, respectively.
Part I. Serum concentrations of Ro 25-8315 increased rapidly and reached mean maximum concentrations of 162.7, 170.7, and 261.6 ng/mL between 6 and 72 hours after SC administration. Thereafter, the serum concentrations of Ro 25-8315 declined mainly in a monoexponential fashion. The mean time to reach the peak levels was 40, 24, and 33 hours at the doses of 20, 60, and 100 µg/kg, respectively. The pharmacokinetic parameters (Tmax, systemic clearance, half-life) of Ro 25-8315 were comparable in the 20-, 60-, and 100-µg/kg dose groups (Table 8). The Cmax and AUC were comparable in the 20- and 60-µg/kg dose groups and increased at the 100-µg/kg dose. In general, the pharmacokinetic parameters of part I of this study were different from the results obtained from healthy subjects, except for serum half-life (data on file). Part II. When given after CT administration, the increase in serum concentrations of Ro 25-8315 was slower in comparison with the results from part I and reached mean maximum values of 141, 379, and 590 ng/mL at the doses of 20, 60, and 100 µg/kg between 72 and 120 hours (Table 8, Fig 7). Thereafter, the serum concentrations of Ro 25-8315 declined mainly in a monoexponential fashion. The mean times to reach the peak levels were 110, 84, and 99 hours at the doses of 20, 60, and 100 µg/kg, respectively, and the Cmax and AUC increased proportionally with the dose at these dose ranges.
This controlled, randomized, phase I study examined the safety and biologic effects of three doses of Ro 25-8315 (20, 60, and 100 µg/kg) when given subcutaneously alone and after high-dose combination CT in breast cancer patients. The increase in the half-life of the study cytokine allows for the induction of biologic effects after a single dose injection, as evidenced by blood counts, numeration of CD34+ cells, and clonogenic progenitors in the peripheral blood of these patients. Two rhG-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) with similar biologic properties have been approved for the last 10 years for clinical use in oncologic and hematologic settings. The major clinical applications of rhG-CSF are their use in accelerating neutrophil recovery after myelosuppressive CT, decreasing the myelotoxicity associated with sequential high-dose CT, and mobilizing PBPCs obtained by leukapheresis for reinfusion by autologous or allogenic transplantation.1,2,16,17 In this study, when filgrastim or Ro 25-8315 was administered after the doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination regimen, the duration of CT-induced neutropenia was similar within the four groups. Ro 25-8315 at 100 µg/kg was more efficient than Ro 25-8315 at 20 and 60 µg/kg and filgrastim in reducing the incidence of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 x 109/L) at day +12 after CT. The incidence of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia was high in our study (overall incidence, 55%) and higher in the Ro 25-8315 groups (15 of 26 patients; 58%) compared with the filgrastim group (three of seven patients; 43%). The higher myelotoxicity could be due to the cumulative amount of previous CT received as well as the advanced stage of disease of our breast cancer population.18 Another explanation could be an early chemotoxicity on circulating progenitor cells at the time of CT administration in part II of the study. CT was administered to patients without a washout period between the two administrations of study drug, whereas the WBCs and progenitor cells had not returned to the steady-state baseline level. The levels of progenitor cells (CD34+, CFU-GM, and BFU-E cells) were lower at day +5 after CT in the Ro 25-8315 groups than in the filgrastim group. This could represent a biologic expression of the chemotoxicity effect on immature hematopoietic cells. Similarly, the higher incidence of CT-induced thrombocytopenia—also described in patients similarly treated with filgrastim in earlier studies2—observed in the Ro 25-8315 100-µg group in part II of the study could indicate a greater susceptibility to CT of committed hematopoietic progenitor cells after one injection of a long-acting Ro 25-8315 2 weeks earlier. This potential risk of cumulative myelotoxicity should be carefully studied in the context of multiple CT. The prolonged and dose-dependent duration of action of single doses of Ro 25-8315 is consistent with the pharmacodynamic effects of Ro 25-8315 observed in the healthy volunteers study (Van der Auwera et al, manuscript submitted for publication).19 In this study, administration of various dosages of Ro 25-8315 was safe and well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that observed after filgrastim treatment and similar to the AE profile observed in the Ro 25-8315 study with human volunteers (Van der Auwera et al, manuscript submitted for publication). The higher incidence of related AEs was observed in the higher dosing group (100 µg/kg) of Ro 25-8315 and was consistent with the dose-related safety profile of G-CSF. Dose-dependent musculoskeletal pain remains the most consistently observed AE associated with filgrastim administration across all cancer patient populations in multiple settings, including as an adjunct to CT and PBPC mobilization.2,20 Hyperleukocytosis has been described as a rare, dose-related, transient, and generally asymptomatic AE of G-CSF administration in patients and healthy donors,21 leading most frequently to the reduction or discontinuation of G-CSF administration. The potential risks of sustained hyperleukocytosis could, however, be a concern after a protracted pharmacodynamic effect of Ro 25-8315. Splenomegaly and splenic rupture have been described as exceptional AEs after G-CSF administration, and these risks could be increased after administration of Ro 25-8315. We demonstrated the ability of Ro 25-8315 to mobilize progenitor cells (CD34+, CFU-GM, and BFU-E cells) in the peripheral blood of cancer patients in a dose-related fashion when given alone or after CT. In a steady-state mobilization regimen, a single injection of Ro 25-8315 administered alone at a dose of 100 µg/kg was able to mobilize a large number of peripheral blood CD34+ cells (> 25/µL) in 100% of the treated patients and was more efficient than seven daily injections of filgrastim given at 10 µg/kg/d. In clinical practice, collection of CD34+ cells by leukapheresis is usually started when more than 20 CD34+ cells/µL are monitored in peripheral blood. In our study’s steady-state mobilization regimen, an efficacy dose of Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg allowed a threshold of 20 CD34+ cells/µL to be reached in 100% of patients. A combination of CT followed by an injection of a hematopoietic growth factor such as filgrastim can mobilize higher numbers of PBPCs compared with filgrastim alone.22 This also translated with Ro 25-8315 in our study. After CT, a single injection of Ro 25-8315 at the doses of 60 and 100 µg/kg seems to be as efficient or even more efficient than a daily filgrastim injection to mobilize progenitor cells; however, daily filgrastim is more efficient than one administration of Ro 25-8315 20 µg/kg. The high number of CD34+ cells mobilized with a single injection of Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg in a steady-state regimen, or with CT followed by a single injection of Ro 25-8315 100 µg/kg and 60 µg/kg, may facilitate the collection of high numbers of PBPCs with a minimum number of leukaphereses. In our study, filgrastim was administered at the standard treatment dose. Ro 25-8315 could be evaluated further in comparison with a higher dosage of G-CSF for PBPC mobilization.23 The kinetics of mobilized progenitor cells was similar within the four treatment groups during the steady-state regimen as well as after CT administration. This consistent and predictable pharmacologic response to Ro 25-8315 is similar to that observed with filgrastim in cancer patients.24 Our study showed tumor cell contamination in the peripheral blood of patients receiving filgrastim or Ro 25-8315 at either dosage, when the hematopoietic growth factors were administered alone or after CT. It has been demonstrated that filgrastim-mobilized PBPC collections of various pathologic entities, including breast cancers, contain tumor cells,25-27 but there is no convincing evidence that the mobilization of hematopoietic progenitors into the peripheral blood is itself associated with the circulation of tumor cells. Moreover, it is not known to what extent these tumor cells are clonogenic and thus might be able to initiate tumoral disease if infused to the patients. In this cancer patient population, most values for pharmacokinetic parameters (Tmax, Cmax, Cl/F, and AUC) of Ro 25-8315 administered in a steady-state regimen were different from the corresponding values found in healthy subjects (Van der Auwera et al, manuscript submitted for publication), indicating that the disease status may affect the pharmacokinetics of Ro 25-8315. After CT administration, the serum clearance of Ro 25-8315 decreased dramatically, as demonstrated by the increase of AUC0-168hr values in part II compared with part I of the study. Such a difference in pharmacokinetics before and after CT may be explained by the decrease in circulating neutrophils as a result of CT and consequently in reduced availability of serum neutrophil G-CSF receptors to which G-CSF binds. It is probable that, as for filgrastim pharmacokinetics,24 the clearance and half-life of Ro 25-8315 are dependent on dose and neutrophil count: G-CSF receptor-mediated clearance is saturated by a high concentration of G-CSF and is diminished by neutropenia. This may have led to a significant fraction of Ro 25-8315 remaining in the circulation in an unbound form rather than binding to neutrophils. However, the linearity of Ro 25-8315 is still maintained over the tested dose range. The increases in Cmax and AUC of Ro 25-8315 in part II of the study were proportional to the administered doses of Ro 25-8315. Therefore, it is possible that the CT may have influenced the disposition kinetics of Ro 25-8315 without having an impact on its linearity at the test dose range. In conclusion, this dose-range study shows that Ro 25-8315 is a long-acting hematopoietic growth factor that enhances neutrophil recovery after intensive CT and mobilizes hematopoietic progenitor cells in the blood of cancer patients when given alone or after CT, in a dose-related manner. In addition, it can be administered safely. Further larger studies are warranted to define the optimal treatment dose according to the clinical indications and to define the best schedule of administration when associated with CT.
Supported in part by research funding from Hoffmann-La Roche Inc to P.VdA. and D.M. We thank Françoise Beaujean, MD (Creteil), Gilles Bourguignon, MD (Lyon), Olivier Feugeas, MD (Strasbourg), Claire Mathiot, MD (Paris), and Alain Bourguignat, MD (Saint-Cloud, France), for their contribution to this study.
P.VdA. and R.C. declare a financial interest in the company whose product was studied in the present report. P.VdA. declares a financial interest in a competing company whose product was studied in the present report.
1. Chevallier B, Chollet P, Merrouche Y, et al: Lenograstim prevents morbidity from intensive induction chemotherapy in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 1564-1571, 1995
2.
Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH, et al: Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): The first 10 years. Blood 88: 1907-1929, 1996 3. Sheridan WP, Begley CG, Juttner CA, et al: Effect of peripheral-blood progenitor cells mobilised by filgrastim (G-CSF) on platelet recovery after high-dose chemotherapy. Lancet 339: 640-644, 1992[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Hartmann O, Le Coroller AG, Blaise D, et al: Peripheral blood stem cells and bone marrow transplantation for solid tumors and lymphomas: Hematologic recovery and costs. Ann Intern Med 126: 600-607, 1996 5. Schmitz N, Linch DC, Dreger P, et al: Randomised trial of filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation versus autologous bone-marrow transplantation in lymphoma patients. Lancet 347: 353-361, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 6. Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Hasenclever D, et al: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation vs filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with early leukemia: First results of a randomised multicentre trial of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 21: 995-1003, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
7.
Blaise D, Kuentz M, Fortanier C, et al: Randomized trial of bone marrow versus lenograstim-primed blood cell allogeneic transplantation in patients with early-stage leukemia: A report from the Société Française de Greffe de Moelle. J Clin Oncol 18: 537-546, 2000 8. Okabe M, Asano M, Gomi K, et al: Effect of mutant human granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, KW–2228, on anticancer drug–induced leukopenia in mice. Pharmacol Ther 9: 2169-2179, 1991
9.
Okabe M, Asano M, Kuga T, et al: In vitro and in vivo hematopoietic effect of mutant human granulocyte colony–stimulating factor. Blood 75: 1788-1793, 1990 10. Delgado C, Francis GE, Fisher D: The uses and properties of PEG–linked proteins. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 9: 249-304, 1992[Medline] 11. Viens P, Gravis G, Genre D, et al: High-dose sequential chemotherapy with stem cell support for non-metastatic breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant 20: 199-203, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 12. Johnsen HE, Knudsen LM: Nordic flow cytometry standards for CD34+ cell enumeration in blood and leukapheresis products: Report from the second Nordic workshop. J Hematother 5: 237-245, 1996[Medline] 13. Johnsen HE: Toward a worldwide standard for CD34+ enumeration? J Hematother 6: 83-84, 1997[Medline] 14. Kasper M, Stosiek P, Typlt H, et al: Histological evaluation of three new monoclonal anti-cytokeratin antibodies: 1. Normal tissues. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 23: 137-147, 1987[CrossRef][Medline] 15. Pantel K, Schlimok G, Angstwurm M, et al: Methodological analysis of immunocytochemical screening for disseminated epithelial tumor cells in bone marrow. J Hematother 3: 165-173, 1994[Medline] 16. Patrone F, Ballestrero A, Ferrando F, et al: Four-step high-dose sequential chemotherapy with double hematopoietic progenitor-cell rescue for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 840-846, 1995[Abstract] 17. Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Hasenclever D, et al: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation vs filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with early leukaemia: First results of a randomised multicenter trial of European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone marrow Transplant 21: 995-1003, 1998
18.
Scinto AF, Ferraresi V, Campioni N, et al: Accelerated chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus r-MetHuGCSF in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 6: 665-671, 1995 19. Molineux G, Kinstler O, Briddell B, et al: A new form of filgrastim with sustained duration in vivo and enhanced ability to mobilize PBPC in both mice and humans. Exp Hematol 27: 1734-1734, 1999 20. Patterson KL, Masuda SY, Brown S: Safety profile of filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF), in Morstyn G, Dexter TM, Foote M (eds): Filgrastim in Clinical Practice. New York, NY, Dekker, Inc, 1998, pp 583-601
21.
Anderlini P, Korkling M, Dale D, et al: Allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation: Considerations for donors. Blood 90: 903-908, 1997 22. Möhle R, Pförsich M, Fruehauf S, et al: Filgrastim post-chemotherapy mobilises more CD34+ cells with a different antigenic profile compared with use during steady-state hematopoiesis. Bone Marrow Transplant 14: 827-832, 1994[Medline]
23.
Duhrsen U, Villeval JL, Boyd J, et al: Effects of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on hematopoietic progenitors cells in cancer patients. Blood 72: 2074-2081, 1988 24. Roskos KL, Cheung EN, Vincent M, et al: Pharmacology of filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF), in Morstyn G, Dexter TM, Foote M (eds): Filgrastim in Clinical Practice ed 2 New York, NY, Dekker, Inc, 1998, pp 51-71
25.
Brugger W, Bross KJ, Glatt M, et al: Mobilization of tumor cells and hematopoietic progenitor cells into peripheral blood of patients with solid tumors. Blood 83: 636-640, 1994 26. Sharp J, Kessinger A, Mann S, et al: Detection and clinical significance of minimal tumour cell contamination of peripheral blood stem cell harvest. Int J Cell Cloning 10: 92-94, 1992 27. Chabannon C, Cornetta K, Lotz JP, et al: High-dose chemotherapy followed by reinfusion of selected CD34+ peripheral blood cells in patients with poor-prognosis breast cancer: A randomized multicenter study. Br J Cancer 78: 913-921, 1998[Medline] Submitted September 14, 2000; accepted August 2, 2001. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
