Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy of pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel in breast cancer patients. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneously on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle of 100 mg/m² docetaxel. The primary end point was the percentage of patients developing febrile neutropenia (defined as body temperature ≥ 38.2°C and neutrophil count < 0.5 × 10⁹/L on the same day of the fever or the day after). Secondary end points were incidence of hospitalizations associated with a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia, intravenous (IV) anti-infectives required for febrile neutropenia, and the ability to maintain planned chemotherapy dose on time. Patients with febrile neutropenia were converted to open-label pegfilgrastim in subsequent cycles. Results: Nine hundred twenty-eight patients received placebo (n = 465) or pegfilgrastim (n = 463). Patients receiving pegfilgrastim, compared with patients receiving placebo, had a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia (1% v 17%, respectively; P < .001), febrile neutropenia–related hospitalization (1% v 14%, respectively; P < .001), and use of IV anti-infectives (2% v 10%, respectively; P < .001). The percentage of patients receiving the planned dose on time was similar between patients receiving pegfilgrastim and patients who initially received placebo (80% and 78%, respectively), as would be expected of the study design. Pegfilgrastim was generally well tolerated and safe, and the adverse events reported were typical of this patient population. Conclusion: First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim with a moderately myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen markedly reduced febrile neutropenia, febrile neutropenia–related hospitalizations, and IV anti-infective use.

The treatment of cancer patients with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, combined therapy anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with anti-CTLA-4) has without doubt been a significant breakthrough in the field of oncology in recent years and constitutes a major step forward as a novel type of immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer. ICIs have contributed to a significant improvement in the outcome of treatment and prognosis of patients with different types of malignancy. With the expansion of the use of ICIs, it is expected that caregivers will face new challenges, namely, they will have to manage the adverse side effects associated with the use of these drugs. New treatment options pose new challenges not only for oncologists but also for specialists in other clinical fields, including general practitioners (GPs). They also endorse the need for taking a holistic approach to the patient, which is a principle widely recognized in oncology and especially relevant in the case of the expanding use of ICIs, which may give rise to a wide variety of organ complications resulting from treatment. Knowledge and awareness of the spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) will allow doctors to qualify patients for treatment more appropriately, prevent complications, correctly recognize, and ultimately treat them. Additionally, patients with more non-specific symptoms would be expected, in the first instance, to consult their general practitioners, as complications may appear even after the termination of treatment and do not always proceed in line with disease progression. Dealing with any iatrogenic complications, will not only be the remit of oncologists but because of the likelihood that specific organs may be affected, is likely to extend also to specialists in various fields of internal medicine. These specialists, e.g., endocrinologists, dermatologists, pulmonologists, and gastroenterologists, are likely to receive referrals for patients suffering from specific types of adverse events or will be asked to provide care in cases requiring hospitalization of patients with complications in their field of expertise. In view of these considerations, we believe that there is an urgent need for multidisciplinary teamwork in the treatment of cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy and suffering the consequent adverse reactions to treatment.

There is increasing evidence that platelets play an important role in the process of tumor angiogenesis. Thrombocytosis is a frequent finding in cancer patients (10-57%). Although the mechanisms underlying thrombocytosis are not yet fully elucidated, tumor-derived factors with thrombopoietin-like activity and growth factors, platelet-derived microparticles, and factors secreted from bone marrow endothelial cells, as well as growth factors released by megakaryocytes (acting via an autocrine loop), are postulated to influence this process. The progression of cancer is associated with hypercoagulability, which results from direct influences of tumor cells and diverse indirect mechanisms. Activated platelets serve as procoagulant surfaces amplifying the coagulation reactions. It is well known that hemostatic proteins are involved in different steps of the angiogenic process. Furthermore, platelets adhering to endothelium facilitate adhesion of mononuclear cells (which exert various proangiogenic activities) to endothelial cells and their transmigration to the extravascular space. It was also documented that platelets induce angiogenesis in vivo. Platelets are a rich source of proangiogenic factors. They also store and release angiogenesis inhibitors. In addition, platelets express surface growth factor receptors, which may regulate the process of angiogenesis. Platelets also contribute directly to the process of basement membrane and extracellular matrix proteolysis by releasing proteinases, or indirectly via inducing endothelial cells and tumor cells to release proteolytic enzymes, as well as through the proteolytic activities of platelet-derived growth factors. The multidirectional activities of platelets in the process of new blood vessel formation during tumor development and metastasis formation may create the possibility of introducing antiplatelet agents for antiangiogenic therapy in cancer patients. Thus far experimental studies employing inhibitors of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa have yielded promising results.

There has been remarkable insight into the importance of platelets in a wide range of pathophysiologic events, including inflammation and cancer progression. Thrombocytosis in cancer patients is a common finding. Tumor cells induce platelet activation and subsequent aggregation through direct and indirect mechanisms. Platelets are recognized to contribute to metastatic dissemination. There is plenty of evidence that components of the hemostatic system contribute to the process of angiogenesis. Furthermore, there are accumulated data on the substantial influence of blood platelets in the process of blood vessel formation during malignancy. Platelets appear to be the main physiologic transporters of proangiogenic and antiangiogenic factors. Moreover, they influence the process of angiogenesis through platelet-derived microparticles, microRNA, lipids, and variety of surface receptors. Platelets contribute to early and late stages of angiogenesis. Available data support the overall stimulatory effect of platelets on tumor angiogenesis. It raises the possibility that interfering with platelet function may be an effective antineoplastic treatment strategy.