Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session

1725 - Literature review of TPOR Agonists for CIT


10 Sep 2017


Poster display session


Supportive Care and Symptom Management


Gerald Soff


Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v543-v567. 10.1093/annonc/mdx388


G.A. Soff1, I. Ray-Coquard2, L.J. Marfil-Rivera3, J. Fryzek4, M. Mullins4, L.C. Bylsma4, J.K. Park5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Hematology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 10065 - New York/US
  • 2 Oncologie Médicale, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon/FR
  • 3 Hematology, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León/MX
  • 4 Epidemiology, EpidStat Institute, Ann Arbor/US
  • 5 Oncology Therapeutic Area, AMGEN (Headquarters) - USA, 91320-1799 - Thousand Oaks/US


Abstract 1725


Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) can lead to dose delay/reduction. Currently there are no specific treatment recommendations beyond transfusion. We performed a systematic literature search on the use of thrombopoietin receptor (TPOR) agonists for CIT.


We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Health Technology Assessments from 1995-2017 for studies of TPOR agonists [eg, romiplostim, eltrombopag, TPO, and megakaryocyte growth and development factor (MGDF)] for CIT. Each publication was independently reviewed by two people and data extracted into Excel.


We screened 892 titles/abstracts, assessed 52 articles, and abstracted data from 14 articles and 15 abstracts/posters from 1997-2016 (10 TPO, 7 MGDF, 8 romiplostim, and 4 eltrombopag), which included 18 randomized trials. TPOR agonist regimens varied widely. Common cancers included leukemia/lymphoma (n = 8 studies) and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 4), and common chemotherapies were platinum-based (n = 15) or included cytarabine (n = 5). Median or mean baseline platelet counts were 56 × 109/L-324 × 109/L in studies to treat CIT (N = 7) and 109 × 109/L-597 × 109/L in studies to prevent CIT (N = 22). The 16 placebo-controlled or crossover studies (MGDF n = 6 studies, TPO n = 5, romiplostim n = 3, eltrombopag n = 2) generally found that TPOR agonists increased platelet counts and reduced transfusions and dose delays/reductions (Table). Safety measures included thromboses (n = 19 studies) and bleeding (n = 8).rnTable:

1563P Study Design and Endpoints TPOR Agonist vs. Control (Range study incidences)

CIT Prevention: Vs. Placebo/Observation or Crossover (n = 16 studies)TPOR Agonist (N = 625)Control (N = 428)
Efficacy Endpointrnrn
Chemotherapy dose delay/reduction3% - 40%58% - 75%
Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia0% - 100%0% - 42%
Platelet transfusions6% - 58%8% - 83%
Safety Endpointrnrn
Thrombosis0% - 29%0% - 33%
Bleeding0% - 100%0% - 50%
CIT Treatment: Vs. rhIL-11 (n = 2 studies)TPOR Agonist (N = 63)Control (N = 71)
Efficacy Endpointrnrn
Chemotherapy dose delay/reductionN/AN/A
Grade 3-4 thrombocytopeniaGrade 3: 54% Grade 4: 14%Grade 3: 85% Grade 4: 41%
Platelet transfusions11%30%
Safety Endpointrnrn
CIT Treatment: Vs. PBO/Observation or Crossover (n = 2 studies)TPOR Agonist (N = 172)Control (N = 65)
Efficacy Endpointrnrn
Chemotherapy dose delay/reductionN/AN/A
Grade 3-4 thrombocytopeniaN/AN/A
Platelet transfusionsN/AN/A
Safety Endpointrnrn
Thrombosis5% - 13%7% - 21%
Bleeding2% - 9%9%


While TPOR agonists have not been approved for use in CIT, this literature review suggests that TPOR agonists may increase platelet counts and decrease chemotherapy dose delay/reduction. Further study with well-characterized bleeding and platelet thresholds is needed to explore the possible benefits of TPOR agonists for CIT compared with current care options (eg, transfusions, dose reduction).

Clinical trial identification

As this was a literature search, there were no trial protocol numbers.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Amgen Inc.


Amgen Inc.


G.A. Soff: Research support from Amgen. J. Fryzek: Employee of EpidStat, which serves as a consultant with Amgen. M. Mullins: Consultant for EpidStat, which itself consults for Amgen. L.C. Bylsma: Employee of EpidStat, which consults for Amgen. J.K. Park: Amgen employee. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.