Fyfe, Gwen

Lineage-specific growth factors mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) and accelerate hematopoietic recovery after high-dose chemotherapy. Recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) may further increase the progenitor-cell content and regenerating potential of PBPC products. We evaluated the safety and activity of rhTPO as a PBPC mobilizer in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in 29 breast cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by PBPC reinfusion. Initially, patients received escalating single doses of rhTPO intravenously (IV) at 0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 μg/kg, on day 1. Subsequent patients received rhTPO 0.6 or 0.3 μg/kg on days −3, −1, and 1, or 0.6 μg/kg on days −1 and 1. G-CSF, 5 μg/kg IV or subcutaneously (SC) twice daily, was started on day 3 and continued through aphereses. Twenty comparable, concurrently and identically treated patients (who were eligible and would have been treated on protocol but for the lack of study opening) mobilized with G-CSF alone served as comparisons. CD34+ cell yields were substantially higher with the first apheresis following rhTPO and G-CSF versus G-CSF alone: 4.1 × 106/kg (range, 1.3 to 17.6) versus 0.8 × 106/ kg (range, 0.3 to 4.2), P = .0003. The targeted minimum yield of 3 × 106CD34+ cells/kg was procured following a single apheresis procedure in 61% of the rhTPO and G-CSF–mobilized group versus 10% of G-CSF–mobilized patients (P = .001). In rhTPO and G-CSF mobilized patients, granulocyte (day 8 v 9, P= .0001) and platelet recovery (day 9 v 10, P= .07) were accelerated, and fewer erythrocyte (3 v 4,P = .02) and platelet (4 v 5, P = .02) transfusions were needed compared with G-CSF–mobilized patients. Peripheral blood platelet counts, following rhTPO and G-CSF, were increased by greater than 100% and the platelet content of PBPC products by 60% to 110% on the first and second days of aphereses (P < .0001) with the greatest effect seen with repeated dosing of rhTPO at 0.6 μg/kg. rhTPO is safe and well tolerated as a mobilizing agent before PBPC collection. Mobilization with rhTPO and G-CSF, in comparison to a comparable, nonrandomized G-CSF–mobilized group of patients, decreases the number of apheresis procedures required, may accelerate hematopoietic recovery, and may reduce the number of transfusions required following high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Abstract Lineage-specific growth factors mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) and accelerate hematopoietic recovery after high-dose chemotherapy. Recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) may further increase the progenitor-cell content and regenerating potential of PBPC products. We evaluated the safety and activity of rhTPO as a PBPC mobilizer in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in 29 breast cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by PBPC reinfusion. Initially, patients received escalating single doses of rhTPO intravenously (IV) at 0.6, 1.2, or 2.4 μg/kg, on day 1. Subsequent patients received rhTPO 0.6 or 0.3 μg/kg on days −3, −1, and 1, or 0.6 μg/kg on days −1 and 1. G-CSF, 5 μg/kg IV or subcutaneously (SC) twice daily, was started on day 3 and continued through aphereses. Twenty comparable, concurrently and identically treated patients (who were eligible and would have been treated on protocol but for the lack of study opening) mobilized with G-CSF alone served as comparisons. CD34+ cell yields were substantially higher with the first apheresis following rhTPO and G-CSF versus G-CSF alone: 4.1 × 106/kg (range, 1.3 to 17.6) versus 0.8 × 106/ kg (range, 0.3 to 4.2), P = .0003. The targeted minimum yield of 3 × 106CD34+ cells/kg was procured following a single apheresis procedure in 61% of the rhTPO and G-CSF–mobilized group versus 10% of G-CSF–mobilized patients (P = .001). In rhTPO and G-CSF mobilized patients, granulocyte (day 8 v 9, P= .0001) and platelet recovery (day 9 v 10, P= .07) were accelerated, and fewer erythrocyte (3 v 4,P = .02) and platelet (4 v 5, P = .02) transfusions were needed compared with G-CSF–mobilized patients. Peripheral blood platelet counts, following rhTPO and G-CSF, were increased by greater than 100% and the platelet content of PBPC products by 60% to 110% on the first and second days of aphereses (P &lt; .0001) with the greatest effect seen with repeated dosing of rhTPO at 0.6 μg/kg. rhTPO is safe and well tolerated as a mobilizing agent before PBPC collection. Mobilization with rhTPO and G-CSF, in comparison to a comparable, nonrandomized G-CSF–mobilized group of patients, decreases the number of apheresis procedures required, may accelerate hematopoietic recovery, and may reduce the number of transfusions required following high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Sensitivity analysis is an important statistical technique that assesses whether the results of phase III trials are robust and likely to be generalizable. Until recently, sensitivity analyses were rarely included in phase III trials, and they remain poorly understood by many oncologists. Sensitivity analyses are critical to understanding the strength of conclusions made in the primary analysis of a late-stage clinical trial. They examine the influence of protocol design errors, unintended biases, deviations from assumptions underlying statistical models, and any unanticipated treatment delivery or practice patterns on trial results. In trials with complex or subjective end points, they also allow an understanding of the extent to which a positive outcome is driven by a single, possibly subjective, and therefore biased, element of an end point. The purposes of this article are to explain how sensitivity analyses are performed, to discuss areas of a clinical trial where sensitivity analyses should focus, and to illuminate the importance of this technique in the rigorous evaluation of late-stage clinical trial data, using specific examples. This article focuses on late-stage trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because sensitivity analyses are particularly important in these cases for which the end point is potentially subject to bias. Three sources of potential bias are explored: assessment time, symptomatic (ie, nonradiologic) disease progression, and missing data. For each source of potential bias, case studies are presented to highlight the role that sensitivity analyses play in determining whether the trial's conclusions are robust.