The reduction of hematologic adverse effects with trilaciclib may improve clinical outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, according to Jerome Goldschmidt, MD.
Treatment with trilaciclib (Cosela) may limit single and multilineage grade 3 or higher myelosuppressive hematologic adverse effects (HAEs) and cytopenia related to health care utilization in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), according to real-world findings published in Advances in Therapy.1
The weighted average rate of grade 3 or higher myelosuppressive HAEs in a real-world cohort of patients treated with trilaciclib with 1 lineage or more was 40.5%. Moreover, the weighted average rate of grade 3 or higher HAEs across 2 lineages or more was 14.5%, and across all 3 lineages, it was 7.5%.
The weighted average rate of grade 3 neutropenia was comparable between historical cohorts of patients who did not receive trilaciclib (28.3%) and those who did (26.1%). In each respective treatment group, the rates of grade 4 neutropenia were 25.1% vs 9.4%, the rates of grade 3 thrombocytopenia were 28.0% vs 16.8%, and the rates of grade 4 cytopenia were 14.5% vs 3.8%.
In a subgroup analysis of patients who began treatment with trilaciclib in the first line, the average rates of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia were 28.9%, 8.9%, and 10.5%, respectively. Additionally, the weighted average rates of grade 3 or higher myelosuppressive HAEs in this subgroup were 33.5% with at least 1 line of therapy, 6.0% with at least 2 lineages, and 5.5% with all 3 lineages.
“This review provides important evidence of the broad benefit of trilaciclib utilization among patients with ES-SCLC to support treatment decisions,” lead study author Jerome Goldschmidt, medical oncologist at the Blue Ridge Cancer Center in Blacksburg, Virginia and the U.S. Oncology Network, said in a press release on these findings.2
“The effect of trilaciclib on reducing grade 3 and 4 myelosuppressive HAEs as well as dose reduction and treatment delay should translate into improved clinical outcomes and [quality of life] among these patients. Moreover, potential reduction in cytopenia-related healthcare utilization and hospitalizations may alleviate overall burden of ES-SCLC on healthcare systems.”
Investigators of this study analyzed findings from published and unpublished real-world studies of patients who received trilaciclib and comparable cohorts of patients who did not receive trilaciclib for ES-SCLC. Eligible real-world studies that were included as part of the literature review focused on those with ES-SCLC who were treated with trilaciclib, and included key outcomes of interest related to chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Included studies also needed to have been published in English.
The primary outcomes of the literature review were myelosuppressive HAEs, which included grade 3 or higher anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Another primary outcome was cytopenia-related healthcare utilization, which included use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), red blood cell and platelet transfusions, and intravenous hydration. Investigators also assessed hospitalizations, dose reductions, and treatment delays in eligible studies.
Of 5 studies eligible for review, 1 included a trilaciclib cohort and a historical cohort of patients who did not receive trilaciclib, 2 focused on trilaciclib-treated patients only, and the remainder included corresponding non-trilaciclib cohorts for the studies that only focused on trilaciclib. Investigators conducted subgroup analyses among patients who began trilaciclib treatment in the first line in 2 of 3 trilaciclib studies.
Sample sizes in the trilaciclib studies ranged from 21 to 50 patients, and populations ranged from 959 to 3277 in the non-trilaciclib studies. Across the trilaciclib cohorts, median ages ranged from 67.1 to 70.0 years, and 44.0% to 51.6% of patients were male. Investigators noted that age and gender distributions were comparable between the trilaciclib and non-trilaciclib cohorts. There were generally higher rates of baseline neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia in the trilaciclib cohorts compared with the non-trilaciclib cohorts.
In the trilaciclib cohorts, the weighted average rates of cytopenia-related healthcare treatment were 16.1% for G-CSF use, 19.7% for ESAs, 15.3% for red blood cell transfusion, 0.7% for platelet transfusion, and 30.2% for intravenous hydration.
In the non-trilaciclib cohorts, the weighted average rate of G-CSF use was 80.2% during the defined outcome observation period and 53.2% within 3 days following the index date. The weighted average rates of red blood transfusion, platelet transfusion, and intravenous hydration in these cohorts, respectively, were 18.8%, 2.6%, and 54.3%.
On average, 11.3% of patients in the trilaciclib cohorts experienced dose reductions compared with 42.3% of those in the historical non-trilaciclib cohorts and 5.4% of those who started trilaciclib in the first line. Additionally, 4.8% of patients in the trilaciclib cohorts underwent hospitalization within 21 days following the index date, and 0.0% were hospitalized between 8 and 16 days following the index date. The corresponding hospitalization rates for patients in the non-trilaciclib cohorts were 18.8% and 7.4%, respectively.