4 results on '"Nakov R"'
Search Results
2. Overall survival and risk of second malignancies with cancer chemotherapy and G-CSF support.
- Author
-
Lyman, G H, Yau, L, Nakov, R, and Krendyukov, A
- Subjects
- *
SYSTEMATIC reviews , *META-analysis , *GRANULOCYTE colony stimulating factor receptor , *NEUTROPENIA , *CANCER complications , *CANCER treatment , *THERAPEUTICS - Abstract
Background The use of supportive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the risk of neutropenic complications in high-risk cancer patients is consistently recommended by several clinical practice guidelines. However, in a previous meta-analysis, G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with an increased risk of secondary malignancies while reducing long-term mortality. We present here an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials of cancer patients receiving conventional-dose chemotherapy, assigned to primary G-CSF support or a control group without initial G-CSF, with at least 2 years of follow-up. Studies were categorized into one of the four groups, based on the chemotherapy regimen and study design. An updated meta-analysis was carried out; relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality and secondary malignancies were calculated. Results Of 2604 articles screened, 14 eligible studies were identified and combined with studies identified in the previous systematic literature searches. The updated meta-analysis included a total of 68 studies presenting 71 separate comparisons. Survival was significantly improved in patients receiving primary G-CSF support, compared with patients without primary G-CSF support (mortality RR=0.92; 95% CI 0.90–0.95; ARD=−3.3%; 95% CI −4.2–−2.4; P < 0.0001). The largest improvement in survival was observed with dose-dense chemotherapy regimens with G-CSF support, compared with controls receiving no G-CSF support (mortality RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.80–0.92; P < 0.0001). Patients who received primary G-CSF support experienced a significantly higher risk of secondary malignancies, compared with controls (RR=1.85; 95% CI 1.19–2.88; ARD=0.47; 95% CI 0.21–0.73; P < 0.01). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that overall survival is improved in patients receiving intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support, compared with those receiving standard chemotherapy. Primary G-CSF support was also associated with a higher risk of developing secondary malignancies, including secondary acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer.
- Author
-
Blackwell, K., Gascon, P., Jones, C. M., Nixon, A., Krendyukov, A., Nakov, R., Li, Y., and Harbeck, N.
- Subjects
- *
RANDOMIZED controlled trials , *BREAST cancer patients , *COMPARATIVE studies , *GRANULOCYTE colony stimulating factor receptor , *DOXORUBICIN , *DOCETAXEL - Abstract
Background: Following the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population. Patients and methods: LA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Results: A total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n=314; reference: n=310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.0561.055 days versus 1.0160.958 days), with a treatment difference of -0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of61 day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies. Conclusions: This pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
- Author
-
Blackwell, K., Semiglazov, V., Krasnozhon, D., Davidenko, I., Nelyubina, L., Nakov, R., Stiegler, G., Singh, P., Schwebig, A., Kramer, S., and Harbeck, N.
- Subjects
- *
BREAST cancer patients , *FILGRASTIM , *COMPARATIVE studies , *NEUTROPENIA , *PATIENTS , *PREVENTION , *THERAPEUTICS ,BREAST cancer chemotherapy - Abstract
Background: Biosimilars of filgrastim are in widespread clinical use in Europe. This phase III study compares biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), with the US-licensed reference product, Neupogen®, in breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC). Patients and methods: A total of 218 patients receiving 5 μg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomized 1:1:1:1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product (nonalternating), biosimilar or reference, and two arms (alternating) received alternating treatments during each cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa). The primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1. Results: The baseline characteristics were balanced between the four treatment arms. Noninferiority of biosimilar versus the reference was demonstrated: DSN (days) in cycle 1 was 1.17 ± 1.11 (biosimilar, N = 101) and 1.20 ± 1.02 (reference, N = 103), 97.5% confidence interval lower boundary for the difference was -0.26 days (above the predefined limit of -1 day). No clinically meaningful differences were observed regarding any other efficacy parameter: incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN); hospitalization due to FN; incidence of infections; depth and time of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and time to ANC recovery during cycle 1 and across all cycles. The pattern and frequency of adverse events were similar across all treatments. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that biosimilar and the reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially benefiting public health by increasing access to filgrastim treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.