Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™), reference Amgen filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in febrile neutropenia primary prevention in breast cancer patients treated with neo(adjuvant) TAC: a non-interventional cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Biosimilars are supported by limited clinical data at the time of approval. Recently, Nivestim™, a biosimilar of reference of filgrastim, was approved for prevention of chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia (FN). To add clinical experience to this new biosimilar, we performed a study to compare the effectiveness of Nivestim™ with reference filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in FN prevention in patients receiving high-risk FN chemotherapy.

Methods

This is a comparative cohort study, with retrospective data collection. Three cohorts were identified according to the type of primary prophylaxis employed over different time periods: reference filgrastim (2004–2006), pegfilgrastim (2007–2008) and biosimilar filgrastim (2011–2012). The study included female patients with early breast cancer that received FN primary prophylaxis during (neo)adjuvant docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC).

Results

Reference filgrastim cohort included 147 patients and pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim cohorts 139 and 134 patients, respectively. FN rates per patient/cycle were 16 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 10.2–22.5 %)/3 % (95 % CI 2.1–4.7 %) in the reference filgrastim group, 9 % (95 % CI 4.5–14.6 %)/2 % (95 % CI 1.3–3.6 %) in the pegfilgrastim group and 16 % (95 % CI 10.0–22.9 %)/4 % (95 % CI 2.5–5.3 %) in the biosimilar filgrastim cohort. The median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at FN presentation was lower in the biosimilar group in comparison with reference filgrastim. FN episodes with ANC < 100 cells/μL were more frequent in the biosimilar group (50 %) when compared with reference filgrastim (4 %) and pegfilgrastim (6 %). No differences concerning FN complications were seen, with the exception of more chemotherapy delays in the biosimilar group when compared with pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

No differences in biosimilar effectiveness were detected. The clinical relevance of the profound neutropenia found in the biosimilar cohort needs further attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J et al (2006) Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer 106:2258–2266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Courtney DM, Aldeen AZ, Gorman SM et al (2007) Cancer associated neutropenic fever: clinical outcome and economic costs of emergency department care. Oncologist 12:1019–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elting LS, Lu C, Escalante CP, Giordano SH et al (2008) Outcomes and cost of outpatient or inpatient management of 712 patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Oncol 26:606–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P (1981) Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 304:10–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chirivella I, Bermejo B, Insa A et al (2009) Optimal delivery of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting improves outcome of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114:479–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2302–2313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Martín M, Seguí MA, Antón A et al (2010) Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 363:2200–2210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Von Minckwitz G, Kümmel S, du Bois A et al (2008) Pegfilgrastim ± ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study. Ann Oncol 19:292–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA et al (2011) 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 47:8–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Crawford J, Caserta C, Roila F (2010) Hematopoietic growth factors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the applications. Ann Oncol 21:248–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crawford J, Armitage J, Balducci L et al (2013) Myeloid growth factors. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 11:1266–1290

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rajan SS, Carpenter WR, Stearns SC, Lyman GH (2013) Short-term costs associated with primary prophylactic G-CSF use during chemotherapy. Am J Manag Care 19:150–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Waller CF, Semiglazov VF, Tjulandin S et al (2010) A phase III randomized equivalence study of biosimilar filgrastim versus Amgen filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for breast cancer. Onkologie 33:504–511

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Passos-Coelho JL, Esteves S, Viera PA et al (2011) Adjuvant chemotherapy with TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) in patients with breast cancer–incidence of neutropenic fever outside clinical trials. Breast J 17:539–541

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hryniuk WM (1988) The importance of dose intensity in the outcome of chemotherapy. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenburg SA (eds) Important advances in oncology. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 121–141

    Google Scholar 

  16. Product Monograph Neupogen: https://www.amgen.ca/Neupogen_PM.pdf

  17. Holmes FA, Jones SE, O’Shaughnessy J et al (2002) 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 13:903–909

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J et al (2003) A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14:29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. EMA Nivestim™ assessment report: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001142/WC500093664.pdf

  20. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA et al (2011) Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 52(4):427–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. González-Barca E, Fernández-Sevilla A, Carratalá J et al (1999) Prognostic factors influencing mortality in cancer patients with neutropenia and bacteremia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 18:539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hosmer W, Malin J, Wong M (2011) Development and validation of a prediction model for the risk of developing febrile neutropenia in the first cycle of chemotherapy among elderly patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer 19:333–341

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dranitsaris G, Rayson D, Vincent M et al (2008) Identifying patients at high risk for neutropenic complications during chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer with doxorubicin or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: the development of a prediction model. Am J Clin Oncol 31:369–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Flowers CR, Seidenfeld J, Bow EJ et al (2013) Antimicrobial prophylaxis and outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 31:794–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Timmer-Bonte JN, de Boo TM, Smit HJ et al (2005) 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. J Clin Oncol 23:7974–7984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kamioner D, Fruehauf S, Maloisel F et al (2013) Study design: two long-term observational studies of the biosimilar filgrastim Nivestim™ (Hospira filgrastim) in the treatment and prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. BMC Cancer 13:547

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was performed while the third author was employed at the original institution (first affiliation), but this author has recently moved to a new employer (third affiliation).

Funding

None.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Rua Prof. Lima Basto, 1099-023, Lisbon, Portugal

    M. Brito, R. André & A. Moreira

  2. Clinical Research Unit, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal

    S. Esteves & A. Moreira

  3. Oncology Department, Novartis Farma SA, Lisbon, Portugal

    R. André

  4. Pharmacy Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal

    M. Isidoro

Authors
  1. M. Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Esteves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. André
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Isidoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Moreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Brito.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brito, M., Esteves, S., André, R. et al. Comparison of effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™), reference Amgen filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in febrile neutropenia primary prevention in breast cancer patients treated with neo(adjuvant) TAC: a non-interventional cohort study. Support Care Cancer 24, 597–603 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2818-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2818-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation