The economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia

The reliability of FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (FENCE) scores in predicting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor breakthrough febrile neutropenia among patients with lymphoma undergoing first-cycle chemotherapy: A prospective observational study

Background

A tool for estimating risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy, namely the FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (FENCE) score, has been developed but has not been widely validated. This study aimed to validate the FENCE score as a tool for predicting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) breakthrough FN among patients with lymphoma who underwent chemotherapy.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of treatment-naive adult patients with lymphoma who underwent their first cycle of chemotherapy between 2020 and 2021. The patients were followed up until the next cycle of chemotherapy to identify any infection events.

Results

Among the 135 patients with lymphoma, 62 (50%) were men. In a comparison of the value of each FENCE parameter for predicting G-CSF breakthrough infection, the parameter of advanced-stage disease showed high sensitivity of 92.8%, and receipt of platinum chemotherapy showed high specificity of 95.33%. With a FENCE score of 12 as a cutoff for low risk, analysis across all patients with lymphoma resulted in a high AUROCC of 0.63 (95% CI = 0.5–0.74%; p = 0.059), and analysis across only patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) resulted in an AUROCC of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.51–0.79%; p = 0.046). With a cutoff point of 12, FENCE score can predict breakthrough infection events at 30.0% (95% CI = 17.8–47.4%).

Conclusion

This study divided patients with lymphoma into risk groups according to FENCE score, showing that this instrument has discriminatory ability in predicting FN events, these being more likely to occur in patients in the intermediate- and high-risk groups. Multicenter studies are needed to validate this clinical risk score.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. RESULTS: The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Development and Internal Validation of a Nomogram Used to Predict Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

This study was designed to develop a nomogram for predicting neutropenia caused by chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Patients and Methods

Information was collected from 376 patients between November 2017 and November 2020. The endpoint was chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <2×10⁹/L). Logistic regression was performed to appraise the prognostic value of each potential predictor. Risk predictors from the final predictive model were used to generate a nomogram. C-index and calibration curve as well as decision curve analysis (DCA) was applied to evaluate model performance.

Results

The multivariate regression model ultimately included three predictors: previous radiotherapy, the current cycle of chemotherapy and neutrophil counts before current chemotherapy. A nomogram was developed and displayed better discrimination (with C-index of 0.875 in the development group and 0.907 in the validation group). Favorable consistency was shown between predicted probability and observed probability in the calibration curves. DCA illustrated that when the threshold probability was 8%-90%, the predictive model provided a net benefit relative to the intervention-all or the intervention-none strategy, indicating that the nomogram had favorable potential clinical utility.

Conclusion

This nomogram will be an available tool to quantify the risk of neutropenia after chemotherapy in patients who suffer from NSCLC and deserves further external validation.

Overuse and underuse of pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia after highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy. While deviations from guidelines could result in overuse and increased costs, underuse is also a concern and could compromise quality of care. Our objectives were to evaluate guideline adherence and quantify the extent to which physician heterogeneity may influence pegfilgrastim use.

METHODS

We randomly sampled 550 patients from a retrospective cohort of those who received infusions at an academic cancer center between 1 September 2013 and 1 September 2014. Electronic medical and drug dispensing records provided information on patient characteristics, chemotherapy characteristics, prescribing physician, and pegfilgrastim administration.

RESULTS

We included 154 patients treated by 25 physicians. About half of patients were male and mean age was 61.3 years. Forty (26.1%) patients had no febrile neutropenia risk factors, 62 (40.5%) had one, and 51 (33.3%) had two or more. Thirty patients (19.5%) received pegfilgrastim, of which 12 (40%) received palliative chemotherapy. Nine (60%) of 15 patients on a regimen with a febrile neutropenia risk  ≥ 20% received pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim use significantly varied by cancer type (p < 0.01), chemotherapy regimen (p < 0.001), and regimen febrile neutropenia risk (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis reaffirmed the association between chemotherapy regimen febrile neutropenia risk ≥ 20% and pegfilgrastim use (odds ratio (OR) = 10.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-62.7) and suggested that 31% (95% CI: 8%-71%) of the variation in use was attributable to physician characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was potentially overused for palliative chemotherapy and underused for chemotherapy regimens with febrile neutropenia risk ≥ 20%. Successful interventions to modify prescribing practices likely require an understanding of the relationship between specific physician characteristics and pegfilgrastim use.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim versus Six Days of Filgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients

Aims and background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim in preventing FN in Italian patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy associated with a ≥20% FN risk.

Methods

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was based on a decision-analytic model taking into account the possible consequences of FN (e.g., death and reduction/delay of chemotherapy dose). Parameters included in the model were relative risk of FN with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim; direct costs (drug purchase and FN-related hospitalizations); relative risk of relative dose intensity <85% with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim; impact on long-term survival due to relative dose intensity <85%; and impact of age on FN and relative dose intensity <85%.

Results

Under base-case assumptions, pegfilgrastim was cost-effective compared to six-day filgrastim in Italy. The estimated cost, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years per person for pegfilgrastim were € 3078, 16.47 years, and 15.32; the corresponding figures for six-day filgrastim were € 3033, 16.35 years, and 15.22. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with pegfilgrastim was € 409 per life-year gained and € 429 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The results were moderately sensitive to the cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, cost of drug administration, cost of FN hospitalization, and number of chemotherapy cycles. Pegfilgrastim remained cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted limit of € 50,000 per life year gained in all one-way sensitivity analyses. A two-way sensitivity analysis on cost of drugs showed a range of pegfilgrastim dominance over six-day filgrastim.

Conclusions

At the current official price in Italy, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim improved health outcomes with a very limited cost increase for the National Health Service payer. Even when very low prices of filgrastim and high prices of pegfilgrastim were considered in the model, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained well within the acceptable cost-effectiveness limit of € 50,000/quality-adjusted life year.

Assessing the impact of a targeted electronic medical record intervention on the use of growth factor in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving chemotherapy are at risk for febrile neutropenia following treatment. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend screening patients for risk of febrile neutropenia and risk stratification based on likelihood of febrile neutropenia events. The impact of the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) system on physician compliance with growth factor support guidelines has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether implementation of automated orders in EMRs can improve adherence to national guidelines in prophylactic G-CSF use in chemotherapy patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from January 1, 2007 to August 1, 2008 (pre- EMR) and January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (post-EMR) was conducted. Institutional adherence to ASCO and NCCN guidelines for G-CSF after the implementation of automatic electronic orders for pegfilgrastim in patients who received a high-risk chemotherapy regimen were examined. The results were compared with a similar study that had been conducted before the implementation of the EMR system.

RESULTS

The number of regimens that included guideline-driven growth factor usage and nonusage was 75.6% in the post-intervention arm, compared with 67.5% in the pre-intervention arm. This is a statistically significant difference between the pre-EMR and post-EMR compliance with national guidelines on growth factor usage ( P = .041, based on chi-square test). The post-EMR implementation data of 1,042 individual new chemotherapy regimens showed correct use of G-CSF in 89.13% high-risk chemotherapy regimens and 58.74% intermediate-risk regimens, with risk factors and incorrect usage in 26.23% of intermediate-risk regimens without risk factors and 19.34% of low-risk regimens. The appropriateness of use in high- and low-risk regimens was the most compliant, because growth factor was built into chemotherapy plans of high-risk regimens and omitted from low-risk regimens.

LIMITATIONS

This project was limited by a change in EMR systems at West Virginia University hospitals on January 1, 2009. All pre- EMR data was collected before 2009 and could not be further collected once the project began in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriateness of growth factor usage can be improved when integrated into an EMR. This can improve compliance and adherence to national recommendations. Further development and understanding of EMR is needed to improve usage to meet national guidelines, with particular attention paid to integration of risk factors into EMR to improve growth factor usage compliance.

History of chronic comorbidity and risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients not receiving G-CSF prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a clinically important complication that affects patient outcome by delaying chemotherapy doses or reducing dose intensity. Risk of FN depends on chemotherapy- and patient-level factors. We sought to determine the effects of chronic comorbidities on risk of FN.

DESIGN

We conducted a cohort study to examine the association between a variety of chronic comorbidities and risk of FN in patients diagnosed with six types of cancer (non-Hodgkin lymphoma and breast, colorectal, lung, ovary, and gastric cancer) from 2000 to 2009 who were treated with chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California, a large managed care organization. We excluded those patients who received primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. History of comorbidities and FN events were identified using electronic medical records. Cox models adjusting for propensity score, stratified by cancer type, were used to determine the association between comorbid conditions and FN. Models that additionally adjusted for cancer stage, baseline neutrophil count, chemotherapy regimen, and dose reduction were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 19 160 patients with mean age of 60 years were included; 963 (5.0%) developed FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30 (1.07-1.57)], congestive heart failure [HR = 1.43 (1.00-1.98)], HIV infection [HR = 3.40 (1.90-5.63)], autoimmune disease [HR = 2.01 (1.10-3.33)], peptic ulcer disease [HR = 1.57 (1.05-2.26)], renal disease [HR = 1.60 (1.21-2.09)], and thyroid disorder [HR = 1.32 (1.06-1.64)] were all associated with a significantly increased FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide evidence that history of several chronic comorbidities increases risk of FN, which should be considered when managing patients during chemotherapy.

History of chronic comorbidity and risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis

We conducted a cohort study to examine the association between a wide variety of chronic comorbidities and risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) from 2000 to 2009 treated with chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. History of comorbidities and FN events were identified using electronic medical records. Cox model adjusting for propensity score was used to determine the association between a comorbid condition and FN. Models that additionally adjusted for cancer stage, baseline absolute neutrophil count, chemotherapy regimen and dose reduction were also evaluated. A total of 2480 patients with NHL were included, and 60% received CHOP/R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, with or without rituximab). In total, 236 (9.5%) patients developed FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Anemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [1.2-2.2]), HIV infection (HR = 3.8 [2.0-6.7]) and rheumatoid diseases (HR = 2.4 [1.3-4.0]) were associated with significantly increased risk of FN. These results provide evidence that chronic comorbidity increases the risk of FN.

Overview of supportive care in patients receiving chemotherapy: antiemetics, pain management, anemia, and neutropenia

With advancements in the field of oncology, more and more people are living with cancer. The prevalence of invasive cancer in the United States is estimated to be almost 12 million. The treatment of cancer as well as the malignancy itself can cause an immense number of side effects and other complications. This article explores the fundamentals of supportive care in patients receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatment including prevention of nausea and vomiting, pain management, treatment of anemia and neutropenia. Proper supportive care can help improve clinical outcomes, reduce medical costs, and help patients with cancer live longer, happier, and healthier lives. For these reasons, it is important for pharmacists to possess a solid understanding of how to prevent and treat the adverse effects of chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

Treatment given near the end of life in castration-resistant prostate cancer

Chemotherapy treatment options are limited for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The purpose of this study is to report treatment use and adverse effects (AEs) within the last three months of life in patients with CRPC. Of the 88 patients identified, 32% received treatment within 3 months of death, and documented AEs occurred in 25% of patients. Of those, neutropenia (18.3%), nausea/vomiting (18.3%), and febrile neutropenia (13.6%) were the most frequent. Results of this study show high treatment utility towards the end-of-life in patients with CRPC, with one fourth of patients experiencing AEs. Attention to health-related quality of life becomes increasingly important as new treatments appear to have small impact on survival, and AEs of those treatments may significantly impact patient quality of life.

Prognostic factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of studies identify new prognostic factors for categorising chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia adult cancer patients into high- or low-risk groups for adverse outcomes. These groupings are used to tailor therapy according to level of risk. However many emerging factors with prognostic significance remain controversial, being based on single studies only.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review was conducted to determine the strength of association of all identified factors associated with the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The participants included were adults of 15 years old and above, with a cancer diagnosis and who underwent cancer treatment.The review focused on clinical factors and their association with the outcomes of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia at presentation of fever.All quantitative studies published in English which investigated clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were considered.The primary outcome of interest was to identify the clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases searched from their respective inception date up to December 2011 include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Science-Direct, Scopus and Mednar.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

The quality of the included studies was subjected to assessment by two independent reviewers. The standardised critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) was used to assess the following criteria: representativeness of study population; clearly defined prognostic factors and outcomes; whether potential confounders were addressed and appropriate statistical analysis was undertaken for the study design.

DATA COLLECTION

Data extraction was performed using a modified version of the standardised extraction tool from the JBI-MAStARI. Prognostic factors and the accompanying odds ratio reported for the significance of these factors that were identified by multivariate regression, were extracted from each included study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Studies results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.1. Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were presented in narrative form.

RESULTS

Seven studies (four prospective cohort and three retrospective cohort) investigating 22 factors in total were included. Fixed effects meta-analysis showed: hypotension [OR=1.66, 95%CI, 1.14-2.41, p=0.008] and thrombocytopenia [OR=3.92, 95%CI, 2.19-7.01, p<0.00001)] were associated with high-risk of adverse outcomes for febrile neutropenia. Other factors that were statistically significant from single studies included: age of patients, clinical presentation at fever onset, presence or absence of co-morbidities, infections, duration and severity of neutropenia state. Five prognostic factors failed to demonstrate an association between the variables and the outcomes measured and they include: presence of pneumonia, total febrile days, median days to fever, recovery from neutropenia and presence of moderate clinical symptoms in association with Gram-negative bacteraemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall limitations identified in the included studies, this review has provided a synthesis of the best available evidence for the prognostic factors used in risk stratification of febrile neutropenia patients. However, the dynamic aspects of prognostic model development, validation and utilisation have not been addressed adequately thus far. Given the findings of this review, it is timely to address these issues and improve the utilisation of prognostic models in the management of febrile neutropenia patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The identified factors are similar to the factors in current prognostic models. However, additional factors that were reported to be statistically significant in this review (thrombocytopenia, presence of central venous catheter, and duration and severity of neutropenia) have not previously been included in prognostic models. This review has found these factors may improve the performance of current models by adding or replacing some of the factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The role of risk stratification of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients continues to evolve as the practice of risk-based therapy has been demonstrated to be beneficial to patients, clinicians and health care organisations. Further research to identify new factors /markers is needed to develop a new model which is reliable and accurate for these patients, regardless of cancer types. A robust and well-validated prognostic model is the key to enhance patient safety in the risk-based management of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Effect of primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use on incidence of neutropenia hospitalizations for elderly early-stage breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy is vital for breast cancer management, but early-onset toxicities like neutropenia hinder its administration, especially in the elderly. Primary prophylactic (PP) use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) helps prevent neutropenia and its complications while receiving chemotherapy. Nevertheless, evidence supporting the effectiveness of PPG-CSF in the elderly is limited. Thus, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for PPG-CSF use in the elderly are not explicit. This study analyzed the effects of administration of PPG-CSF and duration of administration on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia hospitalizations in elderly breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 1994 to 2003. To account for the nonrandom nature of the observational data, a nonparametric matching technique was used to preprocess the data before parametrically estimating the treatment effects.

RESULTS

Administration of PPG-CSF during the first course chemotherapy reduced neutropenia hospitalizations by 16% within the first 3 months and 17% within the first 6 months of chemotherapy initiation (P < 0.05). Hospitalization rates within the first 3 months of chemotherapy initiation were 3 times higher in women receiving less than 5 consecutive days of PPG-CSF compared with women receiving PPG-CSF for 5 or more days (P < 0.05). Hospitalization rates within the first 1 and 6 months were also lower with longer PPG-CSF duration (≥5 d) (P < 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

PPG-CSF use is associated with reductions in in-patient healthcare utilization. These findings have implications for ASCO guidelines and Medicare coverage policies for PPG-CSF administration in elderly breast cancer patients.

Retrospective cost analysis of management of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients in Spain

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is associated with disruption of planned chemotherapy and increased management costs. However, the economic impact of FN in Spanish clinical practice has not been documented hitherto.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective chart review of adults with breast or lung cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) who had > or = 1 FN episode during chemotherapy. Resource use, direct costs, and FN effect on planned chemotherapy were assessed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

238 episodes of FN were analyzed in 194 patients. The mean + or - SD length of FN-related hospitalization was 8.7 + or - 6.9 days (median [p(25)-p(75)] = 7 [5-11] days). At least one transfusion was needed in 77 (32.3%) FN episodes, blood tests were done in 233 (97.9%) and blood cultures in 207 (87.0%). Antibiotics were used in all episodes (100%), other drugs in 186 (78.2%) episodes and the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in 161 (67.7%) episodes. The distribution of costs per episode of FN were: hospitalization 79%, antibiotics 10%, G-CSF 5%, complementary tests 4%; other drugs 1%, blood transfusions 1%. The estimated mean (95% CI) cost per FN episode was euro3841 (95% CI: euro3476-4206). FN management was costlier in NHL patients euro4514 (95% CI: euro3805-5223) than in breast or lung cancer patients (euro3519 [95% CI: euro2976-4061] and euro3311 [95% CI: euro2817-3805] respectively) (P < 0.05 both comparisons). Planned chemotherapy was disrupted in 139 (58.4%) episodes (dose reductions in 75 [34.9%], dose delays in 60 [28.0%] and withdrawal in 33 [14.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS

FN substantially affects healthcare resource use and costs in breast cancer, lung cancer and, NHL. In this study, hospitalization and antibiotics were the main drivers of cost. A limitation of the analysis was that it did not include the indirect costs associated with FN episodes.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious adverse event associated with myelotoxic chemotherapy that predisposes patients to life-threatening bacterial infections. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from the first cycle of chemotherapy is recommended by the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008 National Comprehensive Cancer Network and 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines when the overall risk of FN is approximately 20% or higher. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily filgrastim are two commonly used G-CSFs with different dosing schedules and associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the UK.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model simulated three clinical scenarios: scenario 1 assumed that pegfilgrastim and filgrastim had differential impact on the risk of FN; scenario 2 assumed additional differential impact on FN-related mortality; and scenario 3 assumed additional differential impact on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) with long-term survival effects. The base-case population included 45-year-old women with stage II breast cancer receiving four chemotherapy cycles, with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Model inputs, including FN risk, FN case-fatality, RDI, impact of RDI on survival and utility scores, were based on a review of the literature and expert panel validation. Using data from the literature, it was estimated that the absolute risk of FN associated with pegfilgrastim was 5.5% lower than with 11-day filgrastim (7% vs 12.5%), and 10.5% lower than with 6-day filgrastim (7% vs 17.5%). Costs were taken from official price lists or the literature and included drugs, drug administration, FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs. Breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were obtained from official statistics. The main outcome measures were the costs ( pound, year 2006 values) per percentage decrease in (absolute) FN risk, per FN event avoided, per life-year gained (LYG), and per QALY gained. Model robustness was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost saving compared with 11-day filgrastim ( pound 3196 vs pound 4315). Compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with a cost of pound 4200 per FN event avoided, or pound 42 per 1% decrease in absolute risk of FN, in scenario 1. In scenario 2, pegfilgrastim provided 0.055 more LYGs or 0.052 more QALYs at a minimal cost increase of pound 441 ( pound 3196 vs pound 2754) per person, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound 8075/LYG or pound 8526/QALY. In scenario 3, when all potential benefits of G-CSF were considered, the ICER became pound 3955/LYG or pound 4161/QALY. Results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

In this UK analysis, pegfilgrastim appears to dominate 11-day use of filgrastim. The value of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim at pound 4161-8526/QALY was very favourable compared with the commonly used threshold in the UK. In this setting, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim may be cost effective compared with filgrastim.

Cost–effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in second-line, high-dose, once every 3 weeks irinotecan monotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer

Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in second-line, high-dose, once every 3 weeks irinotecan monotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods: Standard therapy was compared with alternative strategies based on UGT1A1 genotyping from the US healthcare payer perspective. Two alternative strategies (dose reduction and prophylactic use of G-CSF with prior genotyping) and standard therapy were evaluated in a decision analysis, whereas alternative regimens were considered in discussion. The effectiveness outcome was severe neutropenia occurrence and number of life-years gained. Results & Conclusion: Genotyping in combination with a subsequent reduction of initial irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was cost-saving for the population of African and Caucasian origin. By contrast, UGT1A1 genotyping was not cost effective for the population of Asian ancestry. Furthermore, the prophylactic use of G-CSFs in UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was not cost effective in any population group. Finally, the application of a 3-weekly high-dose treatment regimen with a 20% reduced dosage compared with the low-dose weekly irinotecan regimen in patients with UGT1A1 7/7 genotype was less expensive and is more convenient for the patient.

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

OBJECTIVE

A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

RESULTS

Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

CONCLUSION

Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.

Canadian supportive care recommendations for the management of neutropenia in patients with cancer

Hematologic toxicities of cancer chemotherapy are common and often limit the ability to provide treatment in a timely and dose-intensive manner. These limitations may be of utmost importance in the adjuvant and curative intent settings. Hematologic toxicities may result in febrile neutropenia, infections, fatigue, and bleeding, all of which may lead to additional complications and prolonged hospitalization. The older cancer patient and patients with significant comorbidities may be at highest risk of neutropenic complications. Colony-stimulating factors (csfs) such as filgrastim and pegfilgrastim can effectively attenuate most of the neutropenic consequences of chemotherapy, improve the ability to continue chemotherapy on the planned schedule, and minimize the risk of febrile neutropenia and infectious morbidity and mortality. The present consensus statement reviews the use of csfs in the management of neutropenia in patients with cancer and sets out specific recommendations based on published international guidelines tailored to the specifics of the Canadian practice landscape. We review existing international guidelines, the indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis, the importance of maintaining dose intensity, and the use of csfs in leukemia, stem-cell transplantation, and radiotherapy. Specific disease-related recommendations are provided related to breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. Finally, csf dosing and schedules, duration of therapy, and associated acute and potential chronic toxicities are examined.

Review of the value of colony stimulating factors for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenic episodes in adult patients treated for haematological malignancies

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major dose-limiting toxicity of systemic cancer chemotherapy that can lead to fever and infection, requiring prompt analysis and in-patient treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Complicated neutropenia may lead to reduction and/or delay of systemic anti-cancer treatment, which may compromise outcome. Haematopoietic growth factors have the ability to augment haematopoietic cell cycling and are used to facilitate more dose-intense treatments and to decrease treatment-related complications. This review focuses on randomised trials that investigated the use of colony-stimulating factors (CSF) to prevent treatment-related febrile complications in haematological malignancies in (younger) adult patients. In general, these studies demonstrated that CSF reduced the duration of severe neutropenia but not always its febrile complications; therefore inconsistent results regarding clinically relevant reduction of hospitalisation, duration of therapeutic antibiotics, infection-related or disease-related mortality and economic effects were reported. Current developments in treatment of haematological malignancies will pose new challenges as a shift in infectious pathogens can be expected.

Comparison of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim on febrile neutropenia, grade IV neutropenia and bone pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While head-to-head clinical trials demonstrate pegfilgrastim to be as efficacious as filgrastim in reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these studies lacked the statistical power to demonstrate better outcomes with one therapy compared to the other. Our objective was to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim on incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and related outcomes among patients with solid tumors and malignant lymphomas receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published from January 1, 1990 to August 31, 2006 reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim. We only accepted studies in which filgrastim (5 microg/kg/day) and pegfilgrastim (100 microg/kg or a fixed dose of 6 mg) were administered at approved doses indicated on the package insert. Pooled relative risk (RR) was estimated using the conservative random effects, empirical Bayesian method of Hedges and Olkin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of grade IV neutropenia and of FN, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, and bone pain.

RESULTS

We identified five RCTs, with a total of 617 patients, evaluating the efficacy of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per cycle versus daily filgrastim injections. Although only one study had a statistically significant difference in FN reductions favoring pegfilgrastim over filgrastim (relative risk reduction of 50%; p = 0.027), the pooled RR showed a statistically significant favorable result for pegfilgrastim (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.97). Grade IV neutropenia rates (for cycle 1: RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; cycle 2: RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11; cycle 3: RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47-1.36; cycle 4: RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.13), time to ANC (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI, -0.34-0.56), and incidence of bone pain (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.76-1.19) were similar between the two G-CSFs. The included trials varied in the type of cancer, chemotherapy regimen and type of trial.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of pegfilgrastim performed better than a median of 10-14 days of filgrastim in reducing FN rates for patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Role of colony stimulating factors (CSFs) in solid tumours: Results of an expert panel

Febrile neutropenia is a relatively frequent event in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. A relevant body of scientific evidence has been produced in the last 2 decades, through clinical trials addressing the efficacy of colony stimulating factors (CSFs) in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia. The correct use of CSFs needs to be optimized, and several guidelines have been produced and periodically updated, in order to uniform and guide clinical practice. The aim of this review is to synthesize the most relevant clinical trials and the most important existing guidelines about the role of CSFs in solid tumours. Role of CSFs as primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis and treatment of afebrile and febrile neutropenia is discussed. A special focus is dedicated to neutropenia and the use of CSFs in the treatment of the three "big killers" among the solid tumours: breast cancer, lung cancer and colorectal cancer.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: finding the right indication

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia represent major dose-limiting toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. Recommendations for the use of recombinant myeloid growth factors to reduce the risk of neutropenic complications and sustain dose intensity continue to evolve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have confirmed that the myeloid growth factors reduce the risk of neutropenic complications and may facilitate delivered dose intensity in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Older age and certain comorbidities significantly increase the risk of febrile neutropenia and its consequences. Three new clinical practice guidelines for the use of the myeloid growth factors have been published by major professional oncology organizations including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The recommendations and evidence basis for these guidelines are presented here. All three new or updated guidelines recommend prophylactic use of the myeloid growth factors in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia and in those with important variables that increase individual risk of neutropenic complications.

SUMMARY

Consistent clinical practice guidelines based on multiple randomized control trials and meta-analyses should further guide the appropriate and cost-effective use of these agents.

Evaluating the total costs of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: results from a pilot study with community oncology cancer patients

PURPOSE

While cancer chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia affects patients' activities and medical expenditures, few studies have reported on the total costs of this condition. Here, we evaluate the feasibility of obtaining detailed and comprehensive cost information on patients who experience febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy treatment.

METHODS

Community oncology cancer patients who experienced chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia recorded information about use of medical care, tests, devices, medications, and lost productivity. Direct cost estimates were derived from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules and cost-to-charge ratios. Indirect cost estimates were based on modified Labor Force, Employment, and Earnings data for employed patients and wages earned by paid caregivers. Multivariate regression models evaluated predictors of higher direct, indirect, and total costs.

RESULTS

Outpatients' mean direct and indirect costs were 5,704 dollars and 1,201 dollars (lymphoma), 1,094 dollars and 1,530 dollars (breast cancer), and 1,329 dollars and 1,325 dollars (lung cancer and myeloma), respectively. The mean direct and indirect costs were three- to tenfold and 1.5- to threefold greater for inpatients, respectively. Factors associated with higher direct costs of care included diagnosis of lymphoma and inpatient care; higher indirect costs, male versus female gender; higher total costs, lymphoma diagnosis and inpatient care.

CONCLUSION

Estimation of the total costs of cancer-related neutropenia is feasible. Indirect costs appear to account for as much as half of the total supportive care costs when febrile neutropenia is managed in the outpatient setting and about one fifth of the total supportive care costs in the inpatient setting.

Febrile neutropenia: highlighting the role of prophylactic antibiotics and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during standard dose chemotherapy for solid tumors

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is important as it reduces hospitalization and is likely to improve quality of life. Several prophylactic strategies are available, although their use in patients with an anticipated short duration of neutropenia is controversial and not recommended. This paper presents the results of a review of the literature on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and also discusses the recommendations in current guidelines in view of recent publications. Both primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and prophylactic antibiotics reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia considerably, and the addition of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to antibiotics is even more effective. As antibiotics, however, give rise to antimicrobial resistance and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is expensive, tailoring of prophylaxis is clearly needed. This will increase the absolute clinical and economical benefits of prophylaxis. Patient-related, treatment-related and disease-related factors enhancing the risk of febrile neutropenia are discussed, including the, underrated, high risk of febrile neutropenia specifically in the first cycles of chemotherapy. Half of the patients developing febrile neutropenia during treatment do so in the first cycle of chemotherapy, which favors primary prophylaxis. The efficacy of secondary prophylaxis is not well documented. Finally, new interesting agents in the treatment and supportive care of solid tumors have become available, and these are discussed in relation to the incidence and prevention of febrile neutropenia.

Testing the effects of treatment complications on a cognitive-behavioral intervention for reducing symptom severity

Patients (n = 231) diagnosed with solid tumors and undergoing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to the experimental arm (n = 114) or to conventional care (n = 117). A symptom severity index based on summed severity scores across 15 symptoms was the primary outcome. Building on previously published work, an analysis was undertaken to determine the effects of patient characteristics and treatment complications on reductions in symptom severity achieved by a trial of a cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI). The impact of the intervention on symptom severity differed by the occurrence of neutropenic events, chemotherapy dose delays or dose reductions, and number of comorbid conditions. Patients with more comorbid conditions, as well as those who did not experience neutropenia or dose delay/reduction, who received the intervention reported lower severity at 20 weeks compared to those who received conventional care. This research begins to specify the clinical conditions under which CBIs are effective in lowering symptom severity.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Primary Prophylaxis With Antibiotics in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis.

Methods

Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented.

Results

For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, −36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, −2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%.

Conclusion

Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

G-CSF in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia in Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients

The most common chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of breast cancer are anthracyclines and taxanes. The major dose-limiting toxicities associated with these agents are myelosuppression and associated febrile neutropenia (FN). FN can significantly impact the ability to deliver full-dose chemotherapy on schedule and as a result may increase the risk of disease recurrence and eventual disease-related mortality. The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) significantly improves the management of FN, both in a therapeutic and in a prophylactic approach. Nevertheless, the high cost of these agents limits their widespread prophylactic use. Therefore, the identification of patients who are at a higher risk of developing FN and who will benefit from the prophylactic use of G-CSFs has become the subject of several clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. Recently, new data have been accumulated concerning the risk of FN in different chemotherapy regimens, and different risk models have been developed to assess the neutropenic risk with all its complications. This article reviews and summarizes cutting-edge, disease-specific data as well as national and international guidelines regarding the use of G-CSFs to prevent chemotherapy-induced FN, with focus on the treatment of breast cancer.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by prophylactic antibiotics plus or minus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13.

RESULTS

In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1.

CONCLUSION

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Risk models for predicting chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia, are major dose-limiting toxicities of systemic cancer chemotherapy. A number of studies have attempted to identify risk factors for neutropenia and its consequences to develop predictive models capable of identifying patients at greater risk for such complications and to guide more effective and cost-effective applications of the colony-stimulating factors. A systematic review of the literature showed that age, performance status, nutritional status, chemotherapy dose intensity, and low baseline blood cell counts were associated with the risk of severe and febrile neutropenia or reduced chemotherapy dose intensity in multivariate analysis in two or more studies. Similarly, age, diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma, high temperature or low blood pressure at admission, and i.v. site infection along with low blood cell counts and organ dysfunction were associated with serious medical complications of febrile neutropenia, including bacteremia and death. The available risk model studies, however, had several limitations, including retrospective analyses of small study populations lacking independent validation, frequent missing values, and differences in the predictive factors considered. To overcome the limitations of previous studies, efforts are under way to develop and validate risk models based on large prospective studies in representative populations of patients receiving systemic chemotherapy.

Can we predict the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in febrile neutropenic patients, focusing on regimen-specific risk factors? A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to elaborate a predictive model for the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) allowing the identification of patients with a higher risk of complications, especially complicated febrile neutropenia, who might benefit from preventive measures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A score ranging from 0 to 4 on the basis of expected CIN was attributed to each cytotoxic agent given as part of chemotherapy treatment in solid tumours for patients with febrile neutropenia (FN). The individual scores were combined into several overall scores.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients with FN were eligible for this retrospective analysis. We were able to identify two groups of patients with statistically different neutropenia durations with median durations until hematological recovery of ANC > or =0.5 and > or =1.0 x 10(9)/l, being respectively 6 versus 4 days (P = 0.03) and 8 versus 6 days (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of neutropenia is directly influenced by the aggressiveness of the chemotherapy regimen. In this retrospective study, we were able to identify a group of patients who needed two more additional days to recover from grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia, based on the degree of aggressiveness of the cytotoxic agents used.

Pegfilgrastim: a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with sustained duration of action

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim (Neupogen, Amgen, Inc.) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen, Inc.) are frequently used in clinical practice for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its potentially life-threatening complications. Due to its unique neutrophil-mediated clearance, pegfilgrastim can be administered once per chemotherapy cycle. Clinical trials have shown that a single, fixed subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim 6 mg is comparable in safety and efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim for decreasing the incidence of infection following myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Postregistrational trials have been conducted to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim with emerging dose-dense regimens, in myeloid cancers and for mobilisation and engraftment of autologous stem cells. Ongoing clinical trials continue to explore further potential uses for pegfilgrastim.

The colony-stimulating factors: use to prevent and treat neutropenia and its complications

The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) represent the only biological response modifiers used in clinical practice to treat or prevent neutropenia. These pleiotropic cytokines are available in clinical practice as granulocyte CSF (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF) and pegylated G-CSF. Neutropenia and its complications, most importantly febrile neutropenia (FN), remain major and serious side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Several studies and meta-analyses have addressed the clinical applications of CSFs to treat or prevent neutropenia. Guidelines have been developed to foster the appropriate use of CSFs. This article reviews the nature and use of the CSFs, and summarises the critical studies and guidelines. A historical perspective briefly describes the discovery, synthesis and clinical use of CSFs. The major biological and pharmacological characteristics are highlighted. The clinical applications of the CSFs are reviewed, including primary FN prophylaxis, secondary FN prophylaxis, treatment of FN, support of dose-dense chemotherapy regimens, use in leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, utility in stem cell transplantation, and use in elderly and paediatric patients. Finally, clinical efficacy data, as well as the economic impact of the CSFs, are discussed.