PO.CL09.02 · 临床研究

eflapegrastim(efla)在胃肠道(GI)恶性肿瘤患者中应用的真实世界证据

Real-World evidence of eflapegrastim (efla) usage in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies

海报缩略图:eflapegrastim(efla)在胃肠道(GI)恶性肿瘤患者中应用的真实世界证据
编号 6638 展板 7 时间 4/21 02:00–05:00 区域 Section 47 主讲 Howard Franklin
分会场 Real World Data to Provide Real World Evidence
查看 PDF 下载 PDF 🔒 查看 / 下载完整 PDF 需登录并开通下载套餐 · 查看套餐 / 开通 AACR 官方页面

作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations

Howard Franklin1, Jeffrey Crawford2, John H. Baird3, Kenneth Crist1, Vincent Marino4, Neil Shah4, Lee S. Schwartzberg5

1Assertio Holdings, Inc., Lake Forest, IL,2Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC,3City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA,4Atropos Health, Palo Alto, CA,5Renown Health-Pennington Cancer Institute, Reno, NV

摘要 Abstract

中文摘要
背景:长效粒细胞集落刺激因子(GCSF),如efla和pegfilgrastim(peg),常规用于预防接受可诱导中性粒细胞减少化疗的癌症患者(pts)发生中性粒细胞减少。注册研究比较了efla与peg在乳腺癌患者中的应用;而efla在GI癌症中的应用尚未得到充分表征。我们利用真实世界数据评估接受efla或peg并因各种GI恶性肿瘤接受化疗的患者的人口统计学、合并症和临床结局。 方法:我们对接受≥1剂efla或peg联合化疗的GI癌症患者(即肛门、胆道、结肠、直肠、食管、胆囊、胃、肝/肝内胆管、胰腺或小肠恶性肿瘤)进行了回顾性横断面队列分析。信息提取自Atropos Health Apollo数据源(v1.1.0)中2023年至2025年间超过6000万美国患者的电子健康记录。GCSF后15天(D15)和30天(D30)测量的临床结局包括发热性中性粒细胞减少(FN)、中性粒细胞绝对计数(ANC)、血小板计数和不良事件(AE;血小板减少、背痛和骨痛、肌痛、GI和非创伤性头部出血、急性呼吸窘迫综合征和局部皮肤反应)。 结果:识别出接受化疗的患者(N=3353)(efla,n=106;peg,n=3247)。efla组和peg组中的癌症类型(>5%)包括胰腺(各36%)、结肠(各27%)、食管(10%对7%)、直肠/直肠乙状结肠(9%对18%)、胃(8%对9%)和肝/肝内胆管(7%对9%)。化疗方案包括FOLFIRI(35%对21%)和FOLFOX(48%对34%)。接受efla的患者比接受peg的患者年龄更大、合并症负担更高:平均(SD)年龄分别为70.5(8.3)对64.9(12.3)岁,平均(SD)Charlson合并症指数评分分别为12.0(4.0)对10.5(4.3)。截至D15(0.9%对1.3%)和D30(0.9%对1.8%),接受efla或peg的患者间FN发生率相似,efla组观察到的平均ANC高于peg组:截至D15和D30均为10.6对6.4 x 10^9/L。efla组血小板减少发生率高于peg组(截至D15为9.4%对7.8%,截至D30为16.0%对11.0%),截至D15(173对216 x 10^3/μL)和D30(188对219 x 10^3/μL)平均血小板计数更低。截至D30,efla和peg报告的其他AE发生率相似且较低。 结论:因GI恶性肿瘤接受化疗并使用efla治疗的患者比接受peg治疗的患者年龄更大、合并症负担更高。两种治疗间FN发生率相似且较低。其他AE在两组间也相当。这些真实世界发现提示efla在接受多样化化疗方案的成年GI恶性肿瘤患者中具有安全性和有效性。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSFs) such as efla and pegfilgrastim (peg) are routinely used to prevent neutropenia in patients (pts) with cancer undergoing neutropenia-inducing chemotherapy. Registration studies compared efla to peg in pts with breast cancer; efla use in GI cancers is not as well characterized. We used real-world data to assess demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes in pts receiving efla or peg and undergoing chemotherapy for various GI malignancies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort analysis of pts with GI cancers (ie, malignant neoplasm of the anus, biliary tract, colon, rectum, esophagus, gall bladder, stomach, liver/intrahepatic ducts, pancreas, or small intestine) who received ≥1 dose of efla or peg with chemotherapy. Information was extracted from electronic health records of >60 million US pts in the Atropos Health Apollo data source (v1.1.0) between 2023 and 2025. Clinical outcomes measured through 15 (D15) and 30 (D30) days post-GCSF included febrile neutropenia (FN), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), platelet count, and adverse events (AEs; thrombocytopenia, back and bone pain, myalgia, GI and nontraumatic head bleeding, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and localized skin reaction). Results: Pts (N=3353) receiving chemotherapy were identified (efla, n=106; peg, n=3247). Cancer types (>5%) in the efla and peg groups included pancreatic (36% each), colon (27% each), esophagus (10% vs 7%), rectum/rectosigmoid (9% vs 18%), gastric (8% vs 9%), and liver/intrahepatic ducts (7% vs 9%). Chemotherapy regimens included FOLFIRI (35% vs 21%) and FOLFOX (48% vs 34%). Pts receiving efla were older and had a higher burden of comorbidities than those receiving peg: mean (SD) age was 70.5 (8.3) vs 64.9 (12.3) y, respectively, and mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 12.0 (4.0) vs 10.5 (4.3), respectively. FN incidence was similar between pts receiving efla or peg through D15 (0.9% vs 1.3%) and D30 (0.9% vs 1.8%), with higher mean ANC observed with efla vs peg: 10.6 vs 6.4 x 10^9/L, respectively, through both D15 and D30. Thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with efla than with peg (9.4% vs 7.8% through D15, 16.0% vs 11.0% through D30), with lower mean platelet counts through D15 (173 vs 216 x 10^3/μL) and D30 (188 vs 219 x 10^3/μL). Similar, low rates of AEs were reported through D30 with efla and peg. Conclusions: Pts receiving chemotherapy for GI malignancies who were treated with efla were older and had a higher burden of comorbidities than those treated with peg. The incidence of FN was similar and low between treatments. Other AEs were also comparable between the two groups. These real-world findings suggest the safety and efficacy of efla in adult pts with GI malignancies receiving diverse chemotherapy regimens.
利益披露 Disclosure
H. Franklin, Assertio Holdings, Inc. Employment. J. H. Baird, None. K. Crist, Assertio Holdings, Inc. Employment, Other, KC reports consulting fees from Assertio Holdings, Inc. V. Marino, Assertio Holdings Inc. Independent Contractor, VM: employee of Atropos Health. Atropos Health is a service provider of Assertio Holdings LLC and receives compensation for conducting studies. N. Shah, Assertio Holdings, Inc. NS: employee of Atropos Health. Atropos Health is a service provider of Assertio Holdings LLC and receives compensation for conducting studies. L. S. Schwartzberg, Assertio Holdings, Inc. Other, LS received personal fees for consulting from Assertio Holdings, Inc.. Coherus BioSciences Other, LS received personal fees for consulting from Coherus BioSciences.

← 返回 AACR 2026 检索