
==== Front
Support Care Cancer
Support Care Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer
0941-4355
1433-7339
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39215800
8828
10.1007/s00520-024-08828-1
Research
Trilaciclib use in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): are clinical benefits seen in the real-world setting?
Elijah Joseph jelijah@umich.edu

12
Jain Prantesh 3
Holdsworth Allison 4
Baron Jeffrey 45
Przespolewski Eugene 45
Wang Katy 6
Attwood Kristopher 6
Billias Christina 45
Dy Grace K. 3
1 https://ror.org/002pd6e78 grid.32224.35 0000 0004 0386 9924 Department of Pharmacy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA USA
2 https://ror.org/04t5xt781 grid.261112.7 0000 0001 2173 3359 School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Northeastern University, 140 The Fenway, Room 220, Boston, MA USA
3 grid.240614.5 0000 0001 2181 8635 Department of Medical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY USA
4 https://ror.org/01y64my43 grid.273335.3 0000 0004 1936 9887 University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Buffalo, NY USA
5 grid.240614.5 0000 0001 2181 8635 Department of Pharmacy, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY USA
6 grid.240614.5 0000 0001 2181 8635 Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY USA
31 8 2024
31 8 2024
2024
32 9 62216 10 2023
21 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Trilaciclib, in comparison to placebo plus carboplatin, etoposide, ± atezolizumab (PEA), has shown significant reductions in incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Despite these findings, real-world utility remains limited.

Methods

A single-center quasi-experimental study compared trilaciclib + PEA (PEAT) versus PEA in ES-SCLC patients. The study period ranged from April 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, for the PEAT recipients and February 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, for PEA recipients. The primary endpoint evaluated was incidence of SN after cycle 1 and during the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included measures related to myelopreservation and patient outcomes.

Results

Among 34 PEAT and 44 PEA patients, baseline characteristics were similar, except for a higher median age (69 vs 64 years) and more males (64.7% vs 38.6%) in the PEAT cohort. The PEAT cohort exhibited a lower SN rate (3%) versus the PEA cohort (18%), with statistical significance demonstrated on multivariate analysis (p = 0.015). Additionally, the PEAT cohort also demonstrated significant reductions in red blood cell transfusion requirements (3% vs 23%; p = 0.02), grade 3–4 anemia (6% vs 25%; p = 0.03), and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (0% vs 11%, p = 0.045).

Conclusion

Trilaciclib, in combination with PEA, demonstrated an improvement in the safety profile without compromising survival outcomes in ES-SCLC patients. These findings underscore the potential benefits of incorporating trilaciclib in real-world clinical settings for enhanced patient care.

Keywords

ES-SCLC
Trilaciclib
Neutropenia
Carboplatin
Etoposide
Atezolizumab
Northeastern University USAOpen access funding provided by Northeastern University Library

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) represents a therapeutic challenge due to the aggressive nature of tumor growth, early metastatic spread, and the lack of targetable mutations [1]. Nonetheless, platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy has remained the backbone of first-line treatment in combination with either atezolizumab or durvalumab even in the current era of immunotherapy [2, 3]. These cytotoxic agents can damage hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) in the bone marrow, thereby resulting in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) [4]. This sequela may lead to chemotherapy dose reductions and/or delays, which can minimize the intended antitumor effects [5].

Cytotoxicity to HSPCs is particularly concerning in the ES-SCLC patient population because they are often elderly with multiple comorbid conditions and end-organ dysfunction, and thus the risk for CIM is magnified [6, 7]. The cytotoxic therapies utilized in SCLC are recognized in the 2022 Hematopoietic Growth Factors Guideline from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), as being associated with an intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia [8]. The myelosuppressive effects of chemotherapy are routinely managed with growth colony stimulating factors (GCSFs), erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), red blood cell (RBC), and/or platelet transfusions [4]. With the exception of prophylactic G-CSF to ameliorate risk of neutropenic fever, these interventions are lineage-specific and administered after chemotherapy has inflicted myelotoxicity and thus are reactive as opposed to protective. Therefore, a tri-lineage myeloprotective intervention is warranted due to the well-recognized association of severe neutropenia (SN) and duration of neutropenia as risk factors for systemic infections, aside from mitigation of known risks of anemia and thrombocytopenia that can affect quality of life [9].

Trilaciclib is a selective, reversible cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor that takes advantage of the reliance of HSPCs on CDK4/6 activity for myeloproliferation [10–12]. CDK4/6 inhibition results in cell cycle arrest in the G1 phase. Intermittent administration of a transient CDK4/6 inhibitor such as trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy serves to protect HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage [12].

The SCLC population was specifically selected to investigate the role of trilaciclib because SCLC tumors replicate independently of CDK4/6 due to inactivation of the downstream retinoblastoma (RB) protein signaling arising from high prevalence of RB loss and/or mutation; thereby, assessment of the effect on the host is feasible and devoid of potential direct effects on the tumor [11, 12]. Two published phase I and/or II trials in patients with ES-SCLC who received trilaciclib versus those who did not prior to administration of carboplatin, etoposide + / − atezolizumab (PEA), demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the primary endpoints: duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 and incidence of severe neutropenia throughout the treatment period [13, 14]. There were also significant reductions in the severity of hematologic adverse effects, but the reductions in transfusions or use of ESA or GCSF were not consistently significant in statistical analyses. Moreover, there was no beneficial outcome seen in terms of PFS and OS although overall quality-of-life measures generally favored the trilaciclib group in exploratory analyses. Given the established use of G-CSF to overcome neutropenia-related complications, the aim of this analysis is to assess the utility of trilaciclib as well as the degree of patient benefit in the real-world setting regarding additional supportive care measures administered and survival outcomes to justify incorporation of trilaciclib into routine clinical practice.

Methods

Hospital

This retrospective, cohort study was conducted at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, NY. Approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and research was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study design

Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with confirmed ES-SCLC who received trilaciclib (PEAT) versus those who did not receive trilaciclib (PEA) prior to chemotherapy regimens containing PEA on days one through three of a 21-day cycle for up to six cycles were identified via the electronic health record (EHR) and included in the study. Two EHR reports were generated for this natural quasi-experimental approach to compare cohorts prior to and after FDA approval and commercial availability of trilaciclib. The first report included all ES-SCLC patients who received PEAT from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022, whereas the second report included ES-SCLC patients who received PEA from February 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021 (timeframe prior to adoption of trilaciclib into the institute’s drug formulary).

Patients were excluded if they received treatment only for limited-stage SCLC, trilaciclib was initiated with second or later cycles of PEA, there is inconsistent trilaciclib utilization, carboplatin dose AUC < 3.5 with cycle 1, primary prophylaxis with GCSF during cycle 1, active enrollment in a clinical trial and/or receipt of investigational drugs, they were lost to follow-up, and they are pregnant or lactating women. Study data obtained from the EHR included baseline (defined as within 30 days prior to initiation of cycle 1 PEA ± trilaciclib) patient demographic information and disease characteristics (age, gender, race, ECOG PS, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), presence of brain metastases, smoking history, PD-L1 status, eGFR, carboplatin and etoposide dose at cycle 1, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, lymphocytes, as well as receipt of chemotherapy prior to PEA for other malignant diseases).

The primary endpoints for the study were incidence of SN, defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of less than 0.5 cells × 109 cell/L, after cycle 1 and throughout treatment duration. Secondary endpoints assessed were incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), lineage-specific transfusion and/or growth-factor requirements (RBC, platelets, ESA, and GCSF) and total all-cause chemotherapy reductions and treatment delays during each cycle, IV antibiotic use, incidence of systemic infections, hospitalizations secondary to either systemic infections or febrile neutropenia as defined in the 2022 NCCN Prevention and Treatment of Cancer-Related Infections Guidelines, PFS, OS, and incidence of hematologic toxicities (anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and lymphopenia) during each cycle by grade as defined in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5 [15, 16]. All the aforementioned data points were collected and stored in the REDCap web-based application [17, 18].

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis utilized in this study was modeled similarly to the one published in the trial by Daniel et al. which led to FDA approval for use prior to PEA in patients with ES-SCLC [12]. Incidence of SN was compared between the PEAT and the PEA cohort by using a one-sided Fisher’s exact test. The required sample size was calculated to be a minimum of 34 patients in both the PEAT and the PEA cohorts to have 90% power at a one-sided alpha of 0.025 to detect an absolute decrease of 34% in the incidence of severe neutropenia.

Demographic data was analyzed by using descriptive statistics (counts, percentages, means, and standard deviations). In the univariate analyses, categorical variables were compared using a one-sided Fisher’s exact test, and continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. PFS and OS were evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier estimate, with comparisons made using the log-rank test. Multivariate logistic or Cox regression was utilized for the pertinent primary and secondary endpoints and adjusted for the a priori selected variables age and sex. Odds and hazard ratios, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals, were obtained from model estimates. All analyses were conducted in the SAS v9.4 (Cary, NC) at a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Patient population

Of the 62 patients identified who received PEAT, 34 met the inclusion criteria for review (Fig. 1). Inconsistent trilaciclib utilization from cycle two and onward was the most common reason for exclusion (n = 11). Likewise, 44 patients in the PEA cohort were included for review from an initial list of 65 patients. Lost to follow-up (n = 7), carboplatin AUC < 3.5 with cycle 1 (n = 6), and primary prophylaxis with GCSF during cycle 1 (n = 3) were the most common reasons for exclusion from the PEA cohort.Fig. 1 CONSORT diagram

Univariate analysis

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were similar between both cohorts except for older median age of patients (69 years old vs 64 years old) and higher proportion of male patients (64.7% vs 38.6%) in the PEAT cohort (Table 1). The PEAT cohort, when compared to the PEA cohort, demonstrated a numerically lower incidence of severe neutropenia after cycle 1 (3% vs 18%; p = 0.07), overall severe neutropenia (3% vs 18%; p = 0.07), grade 3 neutropenia (6% vs 11%; p = 0.46), and febrile neutropenia (0% vs 7%; p = 0.25). However, statistical significance was not met for all the neutrophil-related endpoints (Fig. 2). Likewise, platelet transfusion requirements as well as grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia were not statistically different. GCSF administration was significantly higher in the PEA cohort (13.6% vs 0%; p = 0.03). Although the median number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) or platelet administration was lower in the PEAT cohort compared to PEA, this was not statistically significant (Table 2). ESA was not administered to either cohort for management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. Incidence of total all-cause chemotherapy reductions (p = 0.16), treatment delays (p = 0.44), systemic infections (p = 0.13), IV antibiotic administration (p = 0.06), and hospitalization secondary to infection or febrile neutropenia (p = 0.06) were also not statistically different (Table 3). However, the PEAT as compared to PEA cohort experienced a statistically significant reduction in number of patients with RBC transfusion requirements (3% vs 23%; p = 0.02) and grade 3/4 anemia (6% vs 25%; p = 0.03) (Fig. 2). PFS and OS between the two cohorts were not statistically different (Fig. 3).Table 1 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics

Characteristic, n (%)	PEAT (N = 34)	PEA (N = 44)	
Age (years) at therapy initiation, median (range)	69 (55–85)	64 (49–84)	
Gender	
  Male	22 (64.7)	17 (38.6)	
  Female	12 (35.3)	27 (61.4)	
Race	
  White	33 (97.1)	38 (86.4)	
  Black	1 (2.9)	1 (2.3)	
  Other	0	5 (11.4)	
Baseline LDH (g/dL)	
   > ULN (618)	14 (41.2)	19 (43.2)	
  Within normal limits	17 (50.0)	18 (40.9)	
  Missing	3 (8.8)	7 (15.9)	
Baseline ECOG PS	
  0	6 (17.6)	10 (22.7)	
  1	18 (52.9)	25 (56.8)	
  2	10 (29.4)	9 (20.5)	
Baseline eGFR (mL/min)	
   < 30	1 (2.9)	0	
  30–59	5 (14.7)	4 (9.1)	
   ≥ 60	28 (82.4)	40 (90.9)	
Presence of brain metastases	14 (41.2)	16 (36.4)	
Smoking history	
  Current smoker	13 (38.2)	18 (41.0)	
  Former smoker	21 (61.8)	24 (54.5)	
  Never smoked	0	2 (4.5)	
PD-L1 status	
  Positive (≥ 1%)	4 (11.8)	4 (9.1)	
  Negative (< 1%)	2 (5.9)	5 (11.4)	
  Missing	28 (82.4)	35 (79.5)	
History of chemotherapy prior to PEA*	8 (23.5)	8 (18.2)	
Carboplatin AUC (mg/mL × min) dose at cycle 1, median (range)	5.0 (3.5–5.0)	5.0 (4.0–5.0)	
Etoposide dose at cycle 1 (mg/m2), median (range)	100 (50–100)	100 (50–100)	
Number of cycles, median (range)	4 (1–6)	4 (1–6)	
Baseline hemoglobin (g/dL), median (range)	13.4 (10.3–16.8)	12.5 (7.8–15.7)	
Baseline platelets (g/dL), median (range)	257.5 (145.0–680.0)	276.0 (75.0–711.0)	
Baseline neutrophils (cells/µL), median (range)	5.8 (2.5–17.7)	6.3 (1.8–22.7)	
Baseline lymphocytes (g/dL), median (range)	1.3 (0.4–3.0)	1.2 (0.4–4.9)	
*Chemotherapy agents received consisted primarily of the following drug classes: platinum agents, topoisomerase inhibitors, taxanes, or antimetabolites

Fig. 2 Summary of myelosuppression endpoints

Table 2 Summary of supportive care product administration

Blood product, n	PEAT
(N = 34)	PEA
(N = 44)	p value	
Total packed red blood cell (units), median (range)	1.0 (1.0–1.0)	2.5 (1.0–7.0)	0.33	
Total platelets (units), median (range)	0	1 (1.0–4.0)	–-	

Table 3 Summary of treatment-related delays and infection characteristics

Characteristic, n (%)	PEAT (N = 34)	PEA (N = 44)	p value	
Total all-cause chemotherapy reductions, median (range)	0 (0–2)	0 (0–4)	0.16	
Total treatment delay occurrences, median (range)	1 (0–3)	1 (0–2)	0.44	
Diagnosis of systemic infections	0	4 (9.1)	0.13	
Required IV antibiotic administration throughout treatment	0	5 (11.4)	0.06	
Required hospitalization secondary to systemic infection or febrile neutropenia	0	5 (11.4)	0.06	

Fig. 3 a Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier PFS rate estimate, b Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier OS rate estimate

Multivariate analysis

The pertinent lineage-specific endpoints and survival outcomes were adjusted for difference in age and gender between the PEAT and PEA cohorts (Figs. 2 and 3). No statistically significant differences were seen between both cohorts regarding platelet transfusion requirements (p = 0.25), PFS (p = 0.63), and OS (p = 0.21). Likewise, incidence of grade 3/4 anemia (p = 0.009) and RBC transfusion requirements (p = 0.005) remained significantly lower in the PEAT versus the PEA cohort. However, a statistically significant difference was demonstrated in severe neutropenia after cycle 1 (p = 0.015), severe neutropenia throughout the treatment period (p = 0.015), and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (p = 0.045) between the PEAT and PEA cohorts.

Discussion

Trilaciclib administration prior to PEA demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of SN throughout the treatment period in comparison to placebo when evaluated in the randomized phase II trial by Daniel et al., which led to FDA approval for utilization prior to PEA in patients with ES-SCLC [14]. The univariate analysis in our real-world study demonstrated a numerically lower but not a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of SN after cycle one and throughout the treatment period. However, patients belonging to the PEAT cohort in our study were older in age (median age of 69 years old vs 64 years old) and were disproportionately made up of male patients (65% vs 39%) when compared to the PEA cohort. Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between both cohorts in the phase II trial, which may be why the incidence of SN after cycle one and throughout treatment became statistically significant when correcting for the difference in age and gender between the cohorts in our study. Therefore, it is reassuring that real-world ES-SCLC patients who received trilaciclib prior to PEA for at least four cycles (four cycles was the median for both cohorts in this study and max number of cycles administered in the phase II trial) experienced a significant reduction in incidence of SN throughout the treatment cycle.

The GIT28-05 randomized phase II PEAT vs PEA trial did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the incidence of lineage-specific transfusion requirements, grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia, FN, as well as GCSF administration [14]. In contrast, the incidence of grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia, RBC transfusion requirements, and GCSF administration were significantly lower in the PEAT when compared to the PEA cohort in our study. Our analysis included patients who received prior chemotherapy (e.g., platinum-based therapy for limited-stage or ES-SCLC) in PEAT (23.5%) and PEA (18.2%) cohorts, whereas such patients were excluded in the GIT28-05 study. Although participants in the GIT28-05 presumably had better bone marrow reserve compared to our patient population and received a maximum of four cycles only, higher frequency of patients with grade 3/4 anemia and RBC transfusion needs was encountered in the PEAT treatment arm of the GIT28-05 trial relative to the PEAT cohort at our center, while RBC-related events observed in the GIT28-05 control group were similar to our PEA only cohort. Thus, while numerically in favor of PEAT, the magnitude of benefit in terms of RBC-related endpoints was not statistically significant in the GIT28-05 study. Nonetheless, two pooled analyses of three randomized phase II trials for SCLC (two in the platinum-based chemotherapy combination setting, one in the topotecan-based treatment setting) demonstrated significantly lower grade 3/4 anemia as well as RBC transfusion requirements in patients who received trilaciclib, which likely contributed to improved patient-reported outcome measures (e.g., fatigue, physical, and functional well-being) [19, 20]. Furthermore, the RBC and platelet sparing effects of trilaciclib are desirable in order to allocate the relevant replacement blood products to patients who require transfusions, which is of particular relevance during blood product shortages.

Infection-related outcomes were not significantly different between the PEAT and PEA cohorts. The PEAT group in comparison to the PEA group demonstrated a numerically lower incidence of systemic infections, requirement of IV antibiotic administration throughout treatment, and hospitalization secondary to systemic infection or FN. A similar result for the aforementioned outcomes was demonstrated in the GIT28-05 [14] and in the pooled analyses as well [19, 20]. The PEAT versus the PEA cohort in our study did not demonstrate a significant difference in PFS (6.9 vs 7.7 months; p = 0.68) and OS (14.7 vs 14.4 months; p = 0.47), recapitulating the observed survival outcomes in the GIT28-05 phase II studies [13, 14]. The PFS and OS outcomes in our study were also similar to what was observed in the pivotal IMPower133 trial and thus reassure that trilaciclib utilization does not produce detrimental effects on survival outcomes [2].

The strengths of this study include the natural quasi-experimental study design and the assessment of primary and secondary endpoints originally evaluated in the pivotal phase II trilaciclib trial. Limitations of this study are the retrospective and single-center nature, lack of quality-of-life patient-reported outcomes (PRO) due to variability in EHR documentation amongst providers as well as lack of standardized system-wide uniform collection of PROs. A lower threshold for RBC transfusion (hemoglobin of 7 g/dL as opposed to 8 g/dL) was also adopted by our institution in early 2022 due to a national blood product shortage. This restriction for blood product administration may potentially affect decisions on whether to administer PRBCs to patients who were included in our study. However, this would not have impacted the unbiased observation that the PEAT cohort had lower grade 3 or 4 anemia rates when compared to the PEA group, with the proportion of patients receiving PRBC administration reflected similarly in each group. Hence, the observed difference in transfusion rate is unlikely to be spurious.

Conclusion

Trilaciclib maintained its previously observed effects with regard to reducing the incidence of SN. Real-world patients in this study exhibited significantly less grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia similar to what was seen in the GIT28-05 phase II randomized study. Rates of grade 3/4 anemia as well as RBC transfusion requirements were statistically in favor of the trilaciclib-treated group for our study, which did not reach statistical significance in the GIT28-05 study. Our study independently shows that trilaciclib administration prior to PEA for patients with ES-SCLC provides myeloprotection and does not negatively impact survival outcomes. Trilaciclib is also FDA approved for myeloprotection prior to administration of topotecan in patients with ES-SCLC [21]. Future studies validating its benefits in combination with lurbinectedin for ES-SCLC (NCT05578326) or in limited stage high-risk-SCLC patients undergoing chemoradiation (e.g., patients with reduced renal function) are likely to be of value as well.

Author contribution

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by J.E., A.H., and C.B. The first draft of the manuscript was written by J.E. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Northeastern University Library

Data availability

The study’s supporting data cannot be openly accessed for reasons of sensitivity, but can be made available upon request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Ethical approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center approved this study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Christina Billias is a co-senior author.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Zugazagoitia J Paz-Ares L Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: first-line and second-line treatment options J Clin Oncol 2022 40 6 671 680 10.1200/JCO.21.01881 34985925
Zugazagoitia J, Paz-Ares L (2022) Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: first-line and second-line treatment options. J Clin Oncol 40(6):671–680. 10.1200/JCO.21.0188134985925
2. Horn L Mansfield AS Szczęsna A First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2018 379 23 2220 2229 10.1056/NEJMoa1809064 30280641
Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A et al (2018) First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 379(23):2220–2229. 10.1056/NEJMoa180906430280641
3. Paz-Ares L Dvorkin M Chen Y Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2019 394 10212 1929 1939 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32222-6 31590988
Paz-Ares L, Dvorkin M, Chen Y et al (2019) Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 394(10212):1929–1939. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32222-631590988
4. Kurtin S Myeloid toxicity of cancer treatment J Adv Pract Oncol 2012 3 4 209 224 25031949
Kurtin S (2012) Myeloid toxicity of cancer treatment. J Adv Pract Oncol 3(4):209–22425031949
5. Havrilesky LJ Reiner M Morrow PK Watson H Crawford J A review of relative dose intensity and survival in patients with metastatic solid tumors Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015 93 3 203 210 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.10.006 25459671
Havrilesky LJ, Reiner M, Morrow PK, Watson H, Crawford J (2015) A review of relative dose intensity and survival in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 93(3):203–210. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.10.00625459671
6. Balducci L Extermann M Management of cancer in the older person: a practical approach Oncologist 2000 5 3 224 237 10.1634/theoncologist.5-3-224 10884501
Balducci L, Extermann M (2000) Management of cancer in the older person: a practical approach. Oncologist 5(3):224–237. 10.1634/theoncologist.5-3-22410884501
7. Lyman GH Kuderer NM Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia Support Cancer Ther 2003 1 1 23 35 10.3816/SCT.2003.n.002 18628128
Lyman GH, Kuderer NM (2003) Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia. Support Cancer Ther 1(1):23–35. 10.3816/SCT.2003.n.00218628128
8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Hematopoietic Growth Factors (Version 2.2022). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/growthfactors.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2022
9. Li Y Klippel Z Shih X Reiner M Wang H Page JH Relationship between severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and risk of infection among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies Support Care Cancer 2016 24 10 4377 4383 10.1007/s00520-016-3277-0 27278272
Li Y, Klippel Z, Shih X, Reiner M, Wang H, Page JH (2016) Relationship between severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and risk of infection among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. Support Care Cancer 24(10):4377–4383. 10.1007/s00520-016-3277-027278272
10. Bisi JE Sorrentino JA Roberts PJ Tavares FX Strum JC Preclinical characterization of G1T28: a novel CDK4/6 inhibitor for reduction of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression Mol Cancer Ther 2016 15 5 783 793 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0775 26826116
Bisi JE, Sorrentino JA, Roberts PJ, Tavares FX, Strum JC (2016) Preclinical characterization of G1T28: a novel CDK4/6 inhibitor for reduction of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Mol Cancer Ther 15(5):783–793. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-077526826116
11. He S Roberts PJ Sorrentino JA Transient CDK4/6 inhibition protects hematopoietic stem cells from chemotherapy-induced exhaustion Sci Transl Med. 2017 9 387 eaal3986 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal3986 28446688
He S, Roberts PJ, Sorrentino JA et al (2017) Transient CDK4/6 inhibition protects hematopoietic stem cells from chemotherapy-induced exhaustion. Sci Transl Med. 9(387):eaal3986. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal398628446688
12. Lai AY Sorrentino JA Dragnev KH CDK4/6 inhibition enhances antitumor efficacy of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in preclinical models and enhances T-cell activation in patients with SCLC receiving chemotherapy J Immunother Cancer 2020 8 2 e000847 10.1136/jitc-2020-000847 33004541
Lai AY, Sorrentino JA, Dragnev KH et al (2020) CDK4/6 inhibition enhances antitumor efficacy of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in preclinical models and enhances T-cell activation in patients with SCLC receiving chemotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 8(2):e000847. 10.1136/jitc-2020-00084733004541
13. Weiss JM Csoszi T Maglakelidze M Myelopreservation with the CDK4/6 inhibitor trilaciclib in patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial Ann Oncol 2019 30 10 1613 1621 10.1093/annonc/mdz278 31504118
Weiss JM, Csoszi T, Maglakelidze M et al (2019) Myelopreservation with the CDK4/6 inhibitor trilaciclib in patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial. Ann Oncol 30(10):1613–1621. 10.1093/annonc/mdz27831504118
14 Daniel D Kuchava V Bondarenko I Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 21] Int J Cancer 2020 148 10 2557 2570 10.1002/ijc.33453
Daniel D, Kuchava V, Bondarenko I et al (2020) Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 21]. Int J Cancer 148(10):2557–2570. 10.1002/ijc.33453
15. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prevention and Treatment of Cancer-Related Infections (Version 2.2022). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/infections.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2022
16. Freites-Martinez A Santana N Arias-Santiago S Viera A Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE - version 5.0) to evaluate the severity of adverse events of anticancer therapies. CTCAE versión 5.0. Evaluación de la gravedad de los eventos adversos dermatológicos de las terapias antineoplásicas Actas Dermosifiliogr 2021 112 1 90 92 10.1016/j.ad.2019.05.009 32891586
Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A (2021) Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE - version 5.0) to evaluate the severity of adverse events of anticancer therapies. CTCAE versión 5.0. Evaluación de la gravedad de los eventos adversos dermatológicos de las terapias antineoplásicas. Actas Dermosifiliogr 112(1):90–92. 10.1016/j.ad.2019.05.00932891586
17. Harris PA Taylor R Thielke R Payne J Gonzalez N Conde JG Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support J Biomed Inform 2009 42 2 377 81 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 18929686
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–8118929686
18. Harris PA Taylor R Minor BL Elliott V Fernandez M O’Neal L McLeod L Delacqua G Delacqua F Kirby J Duda SN REDCap Consortium, The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners J Biomed Inform 2019 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 31078660
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, Duda SN (2019) REDCap Consortium, The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.10320831078660
19. Weiss J Goldschmidt J Andric Z Effects of trilaciclib on chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and patient-reported outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: pooled results from three phase ii randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies Clin Lung Cancer 2021 22 5 449 460 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.03.010 33895103
Weiss J, Goldschmidt J, Andric Z et al (2021) Effects of trilaciclib on chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and patient-reported outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: pooled results from three phase ii randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Clin Lung Cancer 22(5):449–460. 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.03.01033895103
20. Ferrarotto R Anderson I Medgyasszay B Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials Cancer Med 2021 10 17 5748 5756 10.1002/cam4.4089 34405547
Ferrarotto R, Anderson I, Medgyasszay B et al (2021) Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials. Cancer Med 10(17):5748–5756. 10.1002/cam4.408934405547
21. Hart LL Ferrarotto R Andric ZG Myelopreservation with trilaciclib in patients receiving topotecan for small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study Adv Ther 2021 38 1 350 365 10.1007/s12325-020-01538-0 33123968
Hart LL, Ferrarotto R, Andric ZG et al (2021) Myelopreservation with trilaciclib in patients receiving topotecan for small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study. Adv Ther 38(1):350–365. 10.1007/s12325-020-01538-033123968
