Real-world use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in ambulatory breast cancer patients: a cross-sectional study

G-CSF primary prophylaxis use and outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and several patients receiving chemotherapy are at intermediate risk of developing FN. However, the guidelines remain less clear regarding the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for this population and insights about real-world prophylaxis patterns and FN outcomes are needed.

AREAS COVERED

This scoping review summarizes the variability in real-world G-CSF prophylaxis treatment patterns, incidence of FN, and associated outcomes among patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk of FN. G-CSF PP use varied across the included studies (N = 23). Overall, there was a trend for reduced FN incidence among patients who received G-CSF PP vs. those who did not. G-CSF PP was also associated with a lower incidence of FN-related dose delays and reductions and fewer hospitalization days. Gaps in the literature of real-world studies exist, particularly around incorporating FN risk factor assessment, patient-reported outcomes, and health economic outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Further studies are warranted to determine the impact of G-CSF PP use on clinical, quality of life, and economic outcomes in patients with intermediate FN risk, which could optimize care for this subgroup of patients, resulting in better population-based FN-related outcomes.

Improved risk prediction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-model development and validation with real-world data

BACKGROUND

The existing risk prediction models for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) do not necessarily apply to real-life patients in different healthcare systems and the external validation of these models are often lacking. Our study evaluates whether a machine learning-based risk prediction model could outperform the previously introduced models, especially when validated against real-world patient data from another institution not used for model training.

METHODS

Using Turku University Hospital electronic medical records, we identified all patients who received chemotherapy for non-hematological cancer between the years 2010 and 2017 (N = 5879). An experimental surrogate endpoint was first-cycle neutropenic infection (NI), defined as grade IV neutropenia with serum C-reactive protein >10 mg/l. For predicting the risk of NI, a penalized regression model (Lasso) was developed. The model was externally validated in an independent dataset (N = 4594) from Tampere University Hospital.

RESULTS

Lasso model accurately predicted NI risk with good accuracy (AUROC 0.84). In the validation cohort, the Lasso model outperformed two previously introduced, widely approved models, with AUROC 0.75. The variables selected by Lasso included granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, cancer type, pre-treatment neutrophil and thrombocyte count, intravenous treatment regimen, and the planned dose intensity. The same model predicted also FN, with AUROC 0.77, supporting the validity of NI as an endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that real-world NI risk prediction can be improved with machine learning and that every difference in patient or treatment characteristics can have a significant impact on model performance. Here we outline a novel, externally validated approach which may hold potential to facilitate more targeted use of G-CSFs in the future.

A questionnaire survey on evaluation for penetration and compliance of the Japanese Guideline on Febrile Neutropenia among hematology-oncology physicians and surgeons

PURPOSE

The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology published a guideline (GL) on febrile neutropenia (FN) in 2017. The study's purpose is to reveal how widely GL penetrated among physicians and surgeons providing chemotherapy.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was conducted with SurveyMonkey™ for members of the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and relevant academic organizations. Each question had four options (always do, do in more than half of patients, do in less than half, do not at all) and a free description form. Responses were analyzed with statistical text-analytics.

RESULT

A total of 800 responses were retrieved. Major respondents were experts with more than 10-year experience, physicians 54%, and surgeons 46%. Eighty-seven percent of respondents knew and used GL. Forty-eight percent assessed FN with Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score "always" or "more than half." Eighty-one percent chose beta-lactam monotherapy as primary treatment in high-risk patients. Seventy-seven percent did oral antibacterial therapy in low-risk patients ambulatorily. Seventy-eight percent administered primary prophylactic G-CSF (ppG-CSF) in FN frequency ≥ 20% regimen. Fifty-nine percent did ppG-CSF for high-risk patients in FN frequency 10-20% regimen. Ninety-seven percent did not use ppG-CSF in FN frequency < 10% regimen. The medians of complete and complete plus partial compliance rates were 46.4% (range 7.0-92.8) and 77.8% (range 35.4-98.7). The complete compliance rates were less than 30% in seven recommendations, including the MASCC score assessment.

CONCLUSION

GL is estimated to be widely utilized, but some recommendations were not followed, presumably due to a mismatch with actual clinical practices in Japan.

Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review

Purpose

Clinical guidelines’ (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers’ adherence.

Methods

We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics.

Results

Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8–67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68–77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10–80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87–92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers’ adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones.

Registration:

PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05657-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.