Improving treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever by administration of colony-stimulating factors

Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Fused to Elastin-Like Polypeptides Assembles Biologically-Active Nanoparticles

Human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (hGMCSF) is crucial in the immune system as it stimulates survival, proliferation, differentiation, and functional activation of myeloid hematopoietic cells. hGMCSF is integral to approved therapies, including monoclonal antibodies against checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptors, and prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Recombinant hGMCSF can be purified from Escherichia. coli; however, it forms inclusion bodies that require solubilization and refolding. Alternatively, this manuscript describes its fusion with an elastin-like polypeptide (ELP). Previously reported as purification tags and solubility enhancers, ELPs are recombinant polypeptides that undergo reversible temperature-dependent phase separation. This report is the first to show that fusion to an ELP enables direct purification of hGMCSF fusions from the soluble fraction of bacterial lysate. Surprisingly, these ELP-fusions assemble stable, small, spherical nanoparticles that maintain pro-mitotic activity of hGMCSF. These nanoparticles exhibit ELP-mediated phase separation; however, nanoparticle assembly significantly increases the entropic and enthalpic cost of phase separation compared to ELP alone. The attachment of a high molecular weight ELP to a difficult-to-express protein, like hGMCSF, appears to be a useful strategy to stabilize bioactive, protein-based nanoparticles, which may have broad applications in medicine and biology.

Pharmacoeconomic Comparison between Chronochemotherapy and Folfox Regimen in the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Cost-Minimization Study

Aims and background

The addition of oxaliplatin to the widely employed De Gramont schedule (FOLFOX regimen) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improved their outcome with a moderate toxicity pattern. The adaptation of the delivery rate of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin to circadian rhythms (chronotherapy) resulted in a very high drug tolerability with clinical results at least comparable to those achieved with the FOLFOX regimen. However, chronomodulated infusion seemed to be more expensive, requiring dedicated electronic pumps and several disposable materials. The present study aimed to compare the direct costs of the two regimens and to determine whether chronotherapy was effectively more expensive than the FOLFOX regimen.

Study design

The direct costs of drug delivery devices derived from various publicly available sources and of toxicity management as extrapolated from two published studies considering comparable patient subsets were added and compared.

Results

Pump, central venous system and disposable materials for a single chronotherapy cycle were € 193 or € 212 according to whether the pumps were bought or rented, compared to € 58 for the FOLFOX regimen. Toxicity management costs were € 144 vs € 288 for the two schemes, respectively. Globally, a single course of chronotherapy cost € 337 or € 356, whereas a single FOLFOX cycle cost € 346.

Conclusions

Direct costs for a single chronotherapy cycle appeared to be comparable to a single course of the FOLFOX regimen. In fact, the major material cost of chronochemotherapy devices was balanced by a better tolerability profile. The overall improvement in quality of life with chronochemotherapy affecting indirect costs, such as reduction of work, and intangible costs is worthy of further pharmacoeconomic attention.

Use of G-CSF to Sustain Dose Intensity in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study

Background

Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is frequently accompanied by neutropenia requiring dose reduction or treatment delay that can potentially compromise therapeutic effectiveness. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the duration and severity of neutropenia.

Methods

Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer receiving adjuvant systemic chemotherapy met criteria for dose reduction or treatment delay due to neutropenia. All were treated with G-CSF. The mean duration of G-CSF therapy was five days.

Results

An increase in mean absolute neutrophil count was seen in cycles with G-CSF. Chemotherapy treatment was delayed less often following the use of G-CSF.

Conclusions

Breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy who face treatment delays or dose reductions can continue on full-dose intensity therapy using supportive G-CSF. Prospective trials are needed to accurately measure the impact of G-CSF on dose intensity and long-term disease control.

Is pegfilgrastim appropriate for the treatment of established febrile neutropenia?

Objective. To report a case where both pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were considered in the treatment of febrile neutropenia in a hospitalized patient and assess the most cost-effective option.

Case summary. A 77-year-old white female was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus and adjuvant chemotherapy was ordered. She subsequently developed Grade 4 neutropenia, a wound infection and her Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status declined to 4. Antibiotics were started and growth factor therapy was considered as part of her treatment. Filgrastim 480 g subcutaneously every day was chosen and her absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovered after seven days of therapy.

Discussion. This case illustrates the potential cost benefits of using filgrastim over pegfilgrastim in hospitalized patients. The choice of filgrastim in our patient resulted in only seven days of filgrastim therapy at a cost of $2205.70. A 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim is priced similarly to 10 days of filgrastim 480 g, therefore a cost savings of $744.01 was realized in our patient.

Conclusions. Filgrastim is the most appropriate growth factor for the treatment of established high-risk febrile neutropenia given that the ANC can be monitored on a daily basis and therapy can be discontinued upon recovery.

Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.

Outcome of febrile neutropenic patients on granulocyte colony stimulating factor in a tertiary care hospital

INTRODUCTION

Febrile neutropenia is a relatively frequent event in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and improvement in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) has been linked directly to improved outcome. Evaluation of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSFs) for treatment has shown reduced incidences of episodes of prolonged neutropenia and protracted hospitalization. To determine absolute neutrophil counts with GCSF in febrile neutropenic cancer patients admitted to a tertiary care centre and to co-relate the improvement in ANC with mortality and hospital discharge.

METHODS

A prospective cross sectional study was carried at an oncology ward at Aga Khan University hospital from January 2010 to June 2011. All adult patients who were admitted and treated with GCSF for chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia were included. Multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors related with poor outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients with febrile neutropenia were identified with mean age of 43.2 (18-85) years, 79 (60%) being ≤ 50. Seventy-five (57%) had solid tumors and 56 (43%) hematological malignancies, including lymphoma. Fifty seven (43.5%) had an ANC less 100 cells/mm(3), 34 (26%) one between 100-300 cells/mm(3) and 40 (31%) an ANC greater than 300 cells/mm(3). Thirty (23%) patients showed ANC recovery in 1-3 days, and 74(56%) within 4-7 days. Thirteen (10%) patients showed no recovery. The overall mortality was 18 (13.7%) patients. The mean time for ANC recovery seen in hematological malignancies was 6.34 days whereas for solid tumors it was 4.88 days. Patients with ANC <100 cells/mm(3) were more likely to die than patients with ANC >300 cells/mm(3) by a factor of 4.3. Similarly patients >50 years of age were 2.7 times more likely to die than younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that use of GCSF, in addition to intravenous antibiotics, in treatment of patients with chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia accelerates neutrophil recovery, and shortens antibiotic therapy and hospitalization. We propose to risk classify the patients at the time of admission to evaluate the cost effectiveness of this approach in a resource constrained setup.

Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) continues to represent a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and cost in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The reported rates of FN vary considerably among studies depending on the treatment regimen, delivered dose intensity, and patient population. The risk of initial FN appears to be highest during the first cycle of chemotherapy and is greatest in certain high-risk groups including elderly patients and those with various comorbidities. Febrile neutropenia continues to have considerable clinical, economic, and quality-of-life impact on affected patients. The risk of mortality associated with FN continues to be relatively high in patients with hematologic malignancies, patients presenting with comorbid illnesses, and patients with bacteremia, pneumonia, or other infection-related complications. The reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity that frequently follows an episode of FN may have considerable life-threatening impact on disease control in responsive and potentially curable malignancies. The economic burden of FN is substantial, with the greatest proportion of the cost associated with the relatively limited number of patients hospitalized for prolonged periods as a result of comorbidities or complications. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) may reduce the risk and cost associated with cancer treatment by reducing the probability of hospitalization with FN. Primary prophylaxis with the CSFs may be warranted in patients receiving intensive regimens or in those at greater risk because of age or comorbidities. Further study of various risk factors for FN should help identify patients at greatest risk and likely candidates for targeted use of the hematopoietic growth factors.

Prolonged progression-free survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab

The clinical benefit of the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to standard immunochemotherapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) is still unclear. In this retrospective study we analyzed the outcome of 32 consecutive patients with CLL during treatment with FCR. Sixteen patients received G-CSF for treatment of CTC grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia at some point during therapy and 16 did not. Both groups were well balanced for clinical and biological risk factors. Overall response rates were not significantly different (94% vs. 75%; p=0.144). Interestingly, a significantly better progression-free survival (100% vs. 35.4% at 24 months; p<0.001) and even overall survival (100% vs. 77.8% at 24 months; p=0.022) was observed in patients receiving G-CSF. While the underlying cause remains to be elucidated, these data strongly suggest an association of the addition of G-CSF to FCR therapy with final patient outcome.

Review of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the treatment of established febrile neutropenia

Purpose: To assess the value of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in promoting recovery from established episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in cancer patients.

Method: The literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and IPA databases. Reference lists from the retrieved papers and hand searches of relevant journals complemented the search. Eleven randomized controlled trials were selected for review.

Result: G-CSF use in established FN appears to be limited to a small reduction in neutropenia duration, length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use. Overall, there are no significant reductions in time to neutrophil recovery and fever resolution. The cost analyses performed do not show significant cost savings.

Conclusion: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are biological agents typically used for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) or as adjunctive treatment with antibiotics of established FN. Most clinical guidelines discourage the general use of G-CSF for adjunctive treatment of ongoing neutropenic fever; however, its use in special situations, such as high-risk for infectious complications or adverse prognostic factors, is advised. G-CSF should be reserved for high-risk cancer patients, in accordance with the results of this review. This recommendation needs to be taken with caution in view of the disparities and methodological flaws found among trials. It is necessary to design further trials appropriately, well-powered and focused on high-risk patients. Moreover, it is necessary to perform an appropriate economic evaluation for this setting.

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.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Assessment of febrile neutropenia episodes in children with acute leukemia treated with BFM protocols

The authors overviewed 239 febrile neutropenia (FN) episodes in 82 pediatric leukemia cases treated with BFM treatment protocols. FN was observed mostly during consolidation therapy. Mucositis was the most identified focus; gram-negative microorganisms were the most identified pathogens. Five patients developed invasive fungal infections. Fever resolved after mean 5.3 days and mean antibiotic administration time was 12.7 days. Addition of G-CSF to antimicrobial therapy shortened the duration of neutropenia, but it did not affect duration of fever resolution and antibiotic administration. The duration of neutropenia, fever resolution, and antibiotic administration was significantly longer in children with acute myeloid leukemia. The authors conclude that children with acute leukemia have severe prolonged neutropenia and are in high risk. In these patients, prediction of the risk of bacteremia based on clinical and laboratory features is important for immediate empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy and for higher survival rate.

Clinical practice patterns of managing low-risk adult febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy in the USA

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine oncologists' current practice patterns for antibiotic management of low-risk fever and neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A self-administered survey was developed to query management practices for low-risk FN patients and sent to 3,600 randomly selected American Society of Clinical Oncology physician members; hypothetical case scenarios were included to assess factors influencing decisions about outpatient treatment.

RESULTS

Of 3,560 actively practicing oncologists, 1,207 replied (34%). Outpatient antibiotics are used by 82% for selected low-risk FN patients (27% used in them >65% of their patients). Oral levofloxacin (50%), ciprofloxacin (36%), and ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (35%) are common outpatient regimens. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is used by 45% of oncologists, in a subset of afebrile patients at low risk for FN; growth factors are used adjunctively by 48% for treating low-risk FN. Factors associated with choosing outpatient treatment were: frequency of use in oncologists' own practices, absence of hematologic malignancy, lower patient age, no infiltrate on X-ray, no prior serious infection, shorter expected FN duration, lower creatinine levels, and shorter distance of patient's residence from the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

US oncologists, who responded are willing to prescribe outpatient oral antibiotic treatment for low-risk FN, although practices vary considerably and are based on favorable clinical factors. However, practices are often employed that are not recommended for low-risk patients by current guidelines, including fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, adjunctive and/or prophylactic growth factors, and use of levofloxacin for empiric therapy. Educational efforts are needed to better guide cost-effective and supportive care.

Granulocyte and erythropoietic stimulating proteins after high-dose chemotherapy for myeloma

High-dose chemotherapy is an established treatment for patients with myeloma. In randomized trials it has been shown to prolong disease-free survival by around 1 year compared to patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Physically and psychologically high-dose therapy takes its toll on the patient who may be in hospital for around 3 weeks and take some weeks or months to convalesce after discharge. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors and erythropoietic stimulating agents will speed neutrophil and red cell recovery, respectively, when used at an appropriate time after the high-dose chemotherapy. The clinical value of these laboratory findings is uncertain and the role of these agents after high-dose chemotherapy remains a subject for debate.

Economic burden of haematological adverse effects in cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Patients receiving cancer treatments commonly experience haematological adverse effects (AEs) related to chemotherapy or molecularly targeted therapies, which may be associated with high healthcare costs. The objective of this review was to summarise the published literature on the economic burden of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia as AEs of cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search of the medical literature published between 1990 and 2006 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, related article links and supplemental searches. References selected for inclusion were prospective or retrospective studies specifically designed to examine the burden of illness, direct medical costs, indirect costs and/or cost drivers associated with neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia in adult cancer patients. All costs are reported as originally published and adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

In the US, the cost of neutropenia ranged from $US 1893 (2006 value $US 2632) per outpatient episode to $US 38,583 ($US 49,917) per febrile neutropenia hospitalisation. For countries outside the US, the cost of neutropenia appeared to be lower. The cost of thrombocytopenia ranged from $US 1035 ($US 1395) to $US 5328 ($US 7635) per cycle or episode in the US. Costs attributable to anaemia ranged from $US 18,418 ($US 22,775) to $US 69,478 ($US 93,454) per year in the US. The costs of AEs for patients with haematological malignancies appeared to be up to 2-3 times higher than those for patients with solid tumours. Economic studies of the cost of haematological AEs specific to new molecularly targeted treatments for haematological malignancy have not been published.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-related haematological AEs result in a substantial economic burden on patients, payers, caregivers and society in general. Because of their burden, the frequency and severity of these toxicities should be one of the key factors in the selection of optimal treatments for patients with cancer, especially those with haematological malignancies. Future research is needed to assess the economic burden of AEs associated with new molecularly targeted treatments for haematological malignancies.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for established febrile neutropenia: effect on costs from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduces the severity and duration of neutropenia and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cancer chemotherapy. However, the use of G-CSFs, particularly filgrastim, to treat established neutropenia remains controversial. A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating G-CSF treatment for established febrile neutropenia demonstrated a reduction in prolonged hospitalisations. Because more than one-third of patients in the analysis were hospitalised for at least 10 days, this finding has broad pharmacoeconomic and clinical significance. This analysis presents the potential cost implications of G-CSF treatment for established neutropenia among hospitalised patients.

METHODS

Direct medical costs ($US, year 2003 values) related to hospitalisation for established neutropenia were modelled using a hospital perspective and according to two treatment options: (i) no use of G-CSF during the neutropenic episode (control); and (ii) addition of daily G-CSF until neutrophil recovery. Within each option, we modelled the probability of a long stay (>or=10 days) and patient survival. The model used three data sets: discharge data from a consortium of academic medical institutions, drug cost data (filgrastim) from Federal payers, and estimates of G-CSF efficacy derived from a meta-analysis of RCTs of treatment in patients with established febrile neutropenia. The lowest expected total cost was predicted for both treatment options; sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The G-CSF arm produced the lowest expected cost, and predicted net estimated savings of $US1046 per neutropenic episode compared with the control strategy. G-CSF was less expensive than the control for most reasonable estimates of cost per day and all lengths of stay (LOS) >or=10 days. G-CSF was the least costly strategy for 73.5% of 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations, while the no-G-CSF control strategy predicted savings in 26.5% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

This pharmacoeconomic model suggests that therapeutic use of G-CSF should be considered for patients with established neutropenia in order to reduce overall hospital cost. G-CSF treatment may offer substantial potential savings for hospitalised patients with established neutropenia over a wide range of model assumptions. Therapeutic G-CSF use among patients hospitalised for established neutropenia may complement the recommended prophylactic use of these agents for the prevention of neutropenic episodes.

Colony-stimulating factors: clinical evidence for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

The hematopoietic growth factors (HGFs) are a family of glycoproteins which plays a major role in the proliferation, differentiation, and survival of primitive hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, and in the functions of some mature cells. More than 20 different molecules of HGF have been identified. Among them, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) have been demostrated to be effective in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia when administered inmediately after chemotherapy and as supportive therapy in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Chemotherapy used for treatment of cancer often causes neutropenia, which may be profound, requiring hospitalization, and leading to potentially fatal infection. The uses of the recombinant human hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors G-CSF and GM-CSF for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia will be reviewed here.

Prophylactic colony-stimulating factors in children receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are widely utilized to prevent neutropenic complications in both adults and children, but randomized controlled trials in the pediatric setting have reported varied results. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were conducted to definitively assess the impact of prophylactic CSFs on the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric oncology patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched and references hand-searched through July 2004 for randomized controlled trials of prophylactic G-CSF or GM-CSF in pediatric oncology patients. Objectives, outcomes, and quality of the 16 included studies were extracted by two reviewers. Weighted summary estimates of relative risks (RR) were calculated for FN and documented infection (DI). Mean differences in hospitalization, antibiotic use, and duration of neutropenia were calculated.

RESULTS

FN occurred in 68% of 400 controls and 59% of 404 CSF patients. The estimated RR was 0.88 [0.81-0.97; (P=0.01)] favoring the CSFs for leukemia and high grade lymphoma studies and 0.71 [0.51-0.97; (P=0.03)] for solid tumor studies. DI occurred in 25% of controls and 20% of CSF patients for an estimated RR of 0.80 [0.61-1.06; (P=0.12)]. The mean decrease in duration of neutropenia was 3.5 days [2.2-4.7; (P<0.0001)]. Mean decreases favoring CSF use were also observed for hospital stay of 1.7 days [0.9-2.5 (P<0.01)] and antibiotic use of 2.0 days [0.4-3.6; P=0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic CSFs significantly decrease the incidence of FN and the durations of severe neutropenia, hospitalization, and antibiotic use in pediatric cancer patients, but they do not significantly decrease documented infections.

Renal Cell Carcinoma Producing Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor

Severe neutrophilia caused by renal cell carcinoma secreting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a rare manifestation of renal cancer. A 70-year-old woman presented with a 2-year history of severe anemia, severe neutrophilia and elevated serum G-CSF, which completely resolved after radical nephrectomy. Histologic study revealed a histologically high-grade, stage pT1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. Serum G-CSF level was elevated preoperatively and returned to normal postoperatively. Immunohistochemical study of the tumor tissue using anti-G-CSF monoclonal antibody revealed positive staining in the cancer cells. Careful follow-up of white blood cell count and physical examination for neck lymph node enlargement led to the timely identification of tumor recurrence 17 months after surgery, which resulted in prompt and successful salvage immunotherapy. In this case, G-CSF appeared to contribute to the leukocytosis, as both serum G-CSF level and white blood cell count closely correlated with the clinical tumor growth. White blood cell count should be closely monitored as an indicator of disease activity in patients with G-CSF-producing renal cell carcinoma.

Randomized comparison of antibiotics with and without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group

PURPOSE

To determine if granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with empirical antibiotics accelerates febrile neutropenia resolution compared with antibiotics without it.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible children were treated without prophylactic G-CSF and presented with fever (temperature >38.3 degrees C) and neutropenia afterward. Patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome were excluded. Assignments were randomized between G-CSF (5 microg/kg/day) or none beginning within 24 hr of antibiotics. Subcutaneous administration was recommended, but intravenous G-CSF was allowed. Patients remained on study until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >500/microl and > or =48 hr without fever.

RESULTS

One of 67 patients enrolled was ineligible, 59 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Thirty-four were assigned to antibiotics, 32 to G-CSF plus antibiotics. Adding G-CSF significantly reduced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia recovery times. Median days to febrile neutropenia resolution was nine earlier with G-CSF (4 vs. 13 days) (P < 0.0001). However, there was no difference in the resolution of fever between arms. Hospitalization median was shorter by 1 day with G-CSF (4 vs. 5 days) (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the duration of IV and oral antibiotic treatment, addition of antifungal therapy, and shock incidence. A trend for decreased incidence of late fever with G-CSF was noted (6.3 vs. 23.5%) (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding G-CSF to empiric antibiotic coverage accelerates chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia resolution by 9 days in pediatric patients, mainly with ALL, which results in a small but significant difference in the median length of hospitalization.

Colony stimulating factors for prevention of myelosupressive therapy induced febrile neutropenia in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is the most common cancer in childhood and febrile neutropenia is a potentially life-threatening side effect of its treatment. Current treatment consists of supportive care plus antibiotics. Clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the use of colony-stimulating factors (CSF) as additional therapy to prevent febrile neutropenia in children with ALL. The individual trials do not show whether there is significant benefit or not. Systematic review provides the most reliable assessment and the best recommendations for practice.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the addition of G-CSF or GM-CSF to myelosuppressive chemotherapy in children with ALL, in an effort to prevent the development of febrile neutropenia. Evaluation of number of febrile neutropenia episodes, length to neutrophil count recovery, incidence and length of hospitalisation, number of infectious disease episodes, incidence and length of treatment delays, side effects (flu-like syndrome, bone pain and allergic reaction), relapse and overall mortality (death).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search covered the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, LILACS, and SciElo. We manually searched records of conference proceedings of ASCO and ASH from 1985 to 2003 as well as databases of ongoing trials. We consulted experts and scanned references from the relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSF with placebo or no treatment as primary or secondary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia in children with ALL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected, critically appraised studies and extracted relevant data. The end points of interest were:* Primary end points: number of febrile neutropenia episodes and overall mortality (death) * Secondary end points: time to neutrophil count recovery, incidence and length of hospitalisation, number of infectious diseases episodes, incidence and length of treatment delays, side effects (flu-like syndrome, bone pain and allergic reaction) and relapse. We conducted a meta-analysis of these end points and expressed the results as Peto odds ratios. For continuous outcomes we calculated a weighted mean difference and a standardised mean difference. For count data, meta-analysis of the logarithms of the rate ratios using generic inverse variance was employed.

MAIN RESULTS

We scanned more than 5500 citations and included six studies with a total of 332 participants in the analysis. There were insufficient data to assess the effect on survival. The use of CSF significantly reduced the number of episodes of febrile neutropenia episodes (Rate Ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.85; p =0.003, with substantial heterogeneity), the length of hospitalisation (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -1.58; 95% CI -3.00 to -0.15; p = 0.03), and number of infectious diseases episodes (Rate Ratio=0.44; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.80; p=0.002). In spite of these results, CSF did not influence the length of episodes of neutropenia (WMD = -1.11; 95% CI -3.55 to 1.32; p = 0.4) or delays in chemotherapy courses (Rate Ratio=0.77; 95%CI 0.49 to 1,23; p=0.28) .

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Children with ALL treated with CSF benefit from shorter hospitalisation and fewer infections. However, there was no evidence for a shortened duration of neutropenia nor fewer treatment delays, and no useful information about survival. The role of CSF regarding febrile neutropenia episodes is still uncertain. Although current data shows statistical benefit for CSF use, substantial heterogeneity between included trials does not allow this conclusion.

Colony-Stimulating Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Current treatment for febrile neutropenia (FN) includes hospitalization for evaluation, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics, and other supportive care. Clinical trials have reported conflicting results when studying whether the colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) improve outcomes in patients with FN. This Cochrane Collaboration review was undertaken to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CSFs in patients with FN.

Methods

An exhaustive literature search was undertaken including major electronic databases (CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register). All randomized controlled trials that compare CSFs plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established FN in adults and children were sought. A meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed.

Results

More than 8,000 references were screened, with 13 studies meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion. The overall mortality was not influenced significantly by the use of CSF (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.08; P = .1). A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection-related mortality (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.00; P = .05). Patients treated with CSFs had a shorter length of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.82; P = .0006) and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery (HR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46; P < .00001).

Conclusion

The use of the CSFs in patients with established FN caused by cancer chemotherapy reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. The possible influence of the CSFs on infection-related mortality requires further investigation.

The role of colony-stimulating factors and granulocyte transfusion in treatment options for neutropenia in children with cancer

Children with cancer receiving anticancer therapy always experience neutropenia, and as a result often develop serious neutropenic infections that cause morbidity and/or mortality. Intensive chemotherapy with improved supportive care for neutropenia contribute to the recent advances in treatment outcome in children with cancer. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) can shorten the duration and decrease the severity of neutropenia, and thus support intensive chemotherapy. Both G-CSF and GM-CSF stimulate proliferation and maturation of myeloid progenitor cells and are thus used to help mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells, and after stem-cell transplantation. The American Society of Clinical Oncology 2000 Guidelines recommended that colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) can be administered as a primary prophylaxis with a chemotherapy regimen if previous experiences with chemotherapy regimens have shown that the incidence of febrile neutropenia (neutropenic fever) is > or =40%. The routine use of CSFs for secondary prophylaxis or for patients with afebrile neutropenia is not recommended in order to avoid the overuse of CSFs. The use of a CSF may be considered in children with febrile neutropenia with a neutrophil count <100/microL, uncontrolled primary disease, pneumonia, hypotension, multiorgan dysfunction (sepsis syndrome), or invasive fungal infection. Although these guidelines are generally applicable to children with cancer, further studies on CSFs are certainly needed in pediatric oncology. The recent advances in granulocyte collection, using healthy volunteer donor stimulation with G-CSF and/or dexamethasone to yield large numbers of granulocytes has made granulocyte transfusion a more realistic option. Granulocyte transfusion has shown promising results in treating children with severe neutropenic infection; however, controlled trials are warranted to clarify the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this procedure.

Filgrastim-Mediated Neutrophil Recovery in Patients with Breast Cancer Treated with Docetaxel and Doxorubicin

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To study the impact of filgrastim 5 microg/kg given once/day through absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery on the duration of grade 4 neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 x 10(3)/mm3) and time to ANC recovery. Additional objectives were to study the average number of filgrastim injections/cycle required to achieve ANC recovery and differences in outcome by cycle.

DESIGN

Combined analysis of two double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials.

PATIENTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients treated for breast cancer.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All patients but one were evaluable for efficacy end points. Mean +/- SD duration of grade 4 neutropenia was 1.7 +/- 1.3 days in cycle 1; the duration decreased in cycles 2-4 to between 1.0 and 1.2 days. Fifty percent of patients had ANC recovery to 10 x 10(3)/mm3 or greater by day 11 of the cycle, and 90% by day 13, corresponding to 10 and 12 days of filgrastim administration, respectively. Across all cycles, the mean +/- SD number of filgrastim injections/cycle was 10.51 +/- 1.70, with little variation among cycles.

CONCLUSION

When filgrastim is administered as recommended, starting 24 hours after chemotherapy and continuing through an ANC of 10 x 10(3)/mm3 or greater, neutrophil recovery is rapid and predictable. Because the first cycle of chemotherapy has the highest rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, it seems prudent to administer growth factor support preemptively.

Expression profiles of angiogenic growth factors in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck

Inhibition of angiogenesis by blocking angiogenic cytokines or their pathways has become a major target in experimental cancer therapies. This therapeutical approach requires a profound knowledge of growth factor profiles that contribute to tumor growth and progression. The respective knowledge is presently rather incomplete for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). Therefore we studied expression of several angiogenic cytokines including VEGF, bFGF, PDGF-AB, PDGF-BB, G-CSF and GM-CSF in HNSCC in vivo and in vitro. In tumor tissues expression of all cytokines was observed albeit with marked differences concerning intensity and distribution pattern. Quantification of the cytokines in the supernatant of 15 tissue-corresponding HNSCC cultures revealed that VEGF, PDGF-AB and less frequently GM-CSF were secreted in high amounts of up to 13 ng/ml/10(6) cells. Twenty percent of the HNSCC cultures expressed only 1 cytokine in biologically active amounts, 60% 2 or 3 and 20% expressed the maximum of 4 cytokines simultaneously. Interestingly, we observed a distinct cytokine pattern: HNSCC cells secreting only 1 or 2 cytokines presented always with either VEGF and/or PDGF-AB, while G-CSF and GM-CSF were secreted primarily together with VEGF and PDGF-AB. The number of cytokines expressed by HNSCC cells correlated with the microvessel density of the original tumor and with the clinical outcome: tumors producing at least 3 cytokines revealed a significantly poorer patient prognosis. Our data indicate a major role for VEGF and PDGF-AB in HNSCC and that the additional secretion of G-CSF or GM-CSF might contribute to a poorer prognosis in patients suffering from these tumors.

Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients

Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.

Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

The prevailing uncertainty about the pharmacoeconomic positioning of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia has resulted in a number of pharmacoeconomic evaluations published in the past 10 years. These studies vary considerably regarding the approaches used and the results presented. In order to contribute to a clearer pharmacoeconomic positioning of G-CSF, a systematic review of economic evaluations was carried out. The focus of the review was prophylaxis and therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer. A computerised bibliography search of several databases was conducted yielding 33 studies. The findings demonstrated the cost-saving potential of G-CSF in standard-dose chemotherapy to be limited, with lower costs often seen in the control group. The results of these studies were too heterogeneous to extract a clear recommendation from a cost-saving point of view. The administration of G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support resulted more often in cost savings in the G-CSF group as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, illustrating a possible cost-saving potential of G-CSF. In the treatment of established chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, cost savings were found in all studies. This result is surprising but hampered by the small number of studies (n = 5) and remains to be confirmed by more rigourously designed prospective economic analyses. Despite the substantial research on this topic, the economic evaluation of G-CSF is far from being settled and needs further investigation.

Colony stimulating factors for chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia is a frequent event for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and it is potentially a life threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cellular lines in bone marrow. Some clinical trials addressed the question of whether the addition of CSF to antibiotics (ATB) could improve the outcomes of patients with febrile neutropenia. The results of these trials are conflicting and no definitive conclusion could be reached.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of adding colony stimulating factors to ATB when treating febrile neutropenia caused by cancer chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search covered the major electronic databases: CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Experts were consulted and references from the relevant articles scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established febrile neutropenia in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the reviewers independently selected, critically appraised and extracted data from the studies. A meta-analysis of the select studies was performed, using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

More than 8000 references were screened. Thirteen studies were included. The overall mortality was not influenced by the use of CSF [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.43 to 1.08; p=0.1]. A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection related mortality [OR= 0.51; 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.00; p=0.05], but this result was highly influenced by one study. When this study is excluded from our analysis, this possible benefit disappears [OR= 0.85; 95% CI = 0.33 to 2.20; p= 0.7]. The group of patients treated with CSF had a shorter length of hospitalization [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.82; p=0.0006] and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery [HR= 0.32; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.46; p < 0.00001].

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The use of CSF in patients with febrile neutropenia due to cancer chemotherapy does not affect overall mortality, but reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. It was not clear whether CSF has an effect on infection-related mortality.

Infections in the neutropenic patient--new views of an old problem

Infection in the neutropenic patient has remained a major clinical challenge for over three decades. While diagnostic and therapeutic interventions have improved greatly during this period, increases in the number of patients with neutropenia, changes in the etiologic agents involved, and growing antibiotic resistance have continued to be problematic. The evolving etiology of infections in this patient population is reviewed by Dr. Donowitz. Presently accepted antibiotic regimens and practices are discussed, along with ongoing controversies. In Section II, Drs. Maki and Crnich discuss line-related infection, which is a major infectious source in the neutropenic. Defining true line-related bloodstream infection remains a challenge despite the fact that various methods to do so exist. Means of prevention of line related infection, diagnosis, and therapy are reviewed. Fungal infection continues to perplex the infectious disease clinician and hematologist/oncologist. Diagnosis is difficult, and many fungal infections will lead to increased mortality even with rapid diagnosis and therapy. In Section III, Dr. Pappas reviews the major fungal etiologies of infection in the neutropenic patient and the new anti-fungals that are available to treat them. Finally, Dr. Rolston reviews the possibility of outpatient management of neutropenic fever. Recognizing that neutropenics represent a heterogeneous group of patients, identification of who can be treated as an outpatient and with what antibiotics are discussed.

Antibiotics and growth factors in the management of fever and neutropenia in cancer patients

The association of neutropenia and infection continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Prompt hospitalization and initiation of empirical intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics has been the standard of care during the past three decades. Recently, risk-assessment models have been developed that allow the identification of febrile neutropenic patients that are at low risk for medical complications and mortality. New treatment strategies are being evaluated in this low-risk patient population to safely reduce toxicity, decrease costs, and improve quality of life. These include early shift from intravenous therapy to oral antibiotics, immediate initiation of oral empiric treatment, early hospital discharge, or outpatient care. A risk-based approach should also be applied to the use of colony-stimulating factors in this setting. Growth factors should not be routinely administered to neutropenic patients with uncomplicated febrile episodes. However, recent data support their use in populations with high-risk neutropenic fever.

Cost-benefit analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the management of elderly cancer patients

Health care costs continue to rise, and hospitalization represents the single largest component of direct medical costs associated with cancer care. Neutropenia and its complications including febrile neutropenia (FN) remain the major dose-limiting toxicity of systemic cancer chemotherapy. The risk of FN varies considerably across treatment regimens but appears to be significantly higher among elderly patients. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent or treat FN and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy with or without stem cell support. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of the prophylactic use of CSFs. A recently presented meta-analysis of the available RCTs has confirmed the efficacy of prophylactic CSFs. The cost of these agents, along with their large-scale clinical use, has prompted a number of economic investigations. Economic models based on measures of resource utilization derived from RCTs have provided FN risk threshold estimates for the cost-saving use of prophylactic CSF. A number of important studies concerning the clinical and economic impact of these agents in elderly cancer patients have been reported during the past year. Continuing clinical and economic evaluation along with an updating of clinical practice guidelines especially related to elderly patients is recommended because of rapid technologic and clinical advances.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in induction treatment of children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a randomized study of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

To determine whether granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; lenograstim) decreases the incidence of febrile neutropenia after induction courses in treatment of childhood non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive (G-CSF+) or not receive (G-CSF-) prophylactic G-CSF, 5 microg/kg/d, from day 7 until an absolute neutrophil count > or = 500/microL was sustained over 48 hours, after two consecutive induction courses of cyclophosphamide 1.5 or 3 g/m(2), vincristine 2 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)/d x 5, doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2), high-dose methotrexate 3 or 8 g/m(2), and intrathecal injections (COPAD[M]) on protocols LMB89, LMT89, and HM91 of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight patients were assessable, 75 G-CSF+ and 73 G-CSF-. Although duration of neutropenia less than 500/microL was 3 days shorter in G-CSF+ patients (P = 10(-4)), incidence of febrile neutropenia (89% v. 93% in the first course, 88% v. 88% in the second course), durations of hospitalization and antimicrobial therapy, percentages of infections, mucositis, and transfusions were not significantly different. Although the percentage of G-CSF+ patients commencing the following course on day 21 was significantly higher (84% v 68% after the first and 57% v. 38% after the second course; P <.05), the median delay between the two courses was only 1 day less in G-CSF+ patients (median delay after first COPAD(M), 19 v. 20 days, P =.01; after second, 21 v. 22 days, P = not significant). Remission and survival rates were similar in both arms.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that G-CSF did not decrease treatment-related morbidity, nor increase the dose-intensity in children undergoing COPAD(M) induction chemotherapy for NHL.

Cost-minimisation analysis of three regimens of chemotherapy (docetaxel-cisplatin, paclitaxel-cisplatin, paclitaxel-carboplatin) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the efficiency (the evaluation of efficacy in relation to costs) of three first-line treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage IIIB and IV) used in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study: docetaxel/cisplatin (75/75 mg/m(2)/day, 1 h intravenous (i.v.) infusion of docetaxel), paclitaxel/cisplatin (175/75 mg/m(2)/day, 3 or 24 h i.v. infusion of paclitaxel) and paclitaxel/carboplatin (175/400 or 225/400 mg/m(2)/day, 3 h i.v. infusion of paclitaxel).

METHODS

The results of the ECOG 1594 phase III clinical trial (Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 19 (2000) 2) demonstrated equivalent efficacy (survival, objective response) between the treatment options. To differentiate between the treatment options, we performed a cost-minimisation analysis, using a pharmacoeconomic model.

RESULTS

The average estimated treatment cost per patient (median, 4 cycles) with docetaxel/cisplatin would be 1067836 Spanish pesetas (Ptas) (6418 Euros; 5741 US dollars (USD)), 1365304 or 1439369 Ptas (8205 or 8651 Euros; 7340 or 7738 USD) with paclitaxel/cisplatin (3 or 24 h infusions, respectively), and 1417995 or 1616784 Ptas (8522 or 9717 Euros; 7623 or 8692 USD) (paclitaxel dose of 175 or 225 mg/m(2)/day, respectively) with paclitaxel/carboplatin.

CONCLUSION

According to our study, the treatment option docetaxel/cisplatin, with equal efficacy, would result in a cost saving of between 297468 and 548948 Ptas (1788 and 3299 Euros; 1599 and 2951 USD) per patient treated. This difference is mainly due to the lower treatment cost of docetaxel.

Macrophage colony-stimulating factor restored chemotherapy-induced granulocyte dysfunctions: role of IL-8 production by monocytes

We evaluated the influence of M-CSF treatment on granulocyte functions in patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen patients with ovarian cancer received two consecutive courses of chemotherapy (16 cases, CAP therapy and two cases, CP therapy) at 4-week intervals. M-CSF (8 million U/day) was infused for 7 days starting from the next day after chemotherapy. Superoxide anion production by isolated peripheral blood granulocytes, their phagocytosis, and expression of cell adhesion molecules such as CD11a, CD11b, and CD18 on granulocytes were measured by flow cytometry. Cytokine (IL-8, G-CSF, and GM-CSF) levels in peripheral blood monocyte (PBM) culture supernatants were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 5 out of 18 cases. The levels of CD11a, CD11b and CD18 expression on peripheral blood granulocytes and superoxide anion production by granulocytes were significantly suppressed by chemotherapy without CSF support. The levels of CD11a and CD18 expression on granulocytes were significantly enhanced by administration of M-CSF. When M-CSF was added to cultured PBM, the level of IL-8 in the supernatant increased with the concentration of M-CSF. When IL-8 was added to cultured granulocytes, the levels of CD18 expression on granulocytes and superoxide anion production by granulocytes were significantly increased. These observations suggest that M-CSF enhances the production of IL-8 from monocytes in vivo, thereby improving chemotherapy-induced granulocyte dysfunction.

Macrophage colony-stimulating factor prevents febrile neutropenia induced by chemotherapy

There are very few studies describing the preventive effect of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF/CSF-1) on chemotherapy-induced infection. In this study, we evaluated the changes in superoxide anion production by granulocytes before and after chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients and investigated the preventive effect of M-CSF on chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Three courses of chemotherapy [paclitaxel 180 mg/m(2) and carboplatin (area under the curve; AUC 5)] were administered to 32 ovarian cancer patients, and seven patients presented febrile neutropenia. In the 25 afebrile patients, the percentage of superoxide anion production by granulocytes was significantly decreased from 86.5 +/- 7.7 (%) to 75.1 +/- 8.8 (%) at day 7 and 71.0 +/- 6.3 (%) at day 14 without administration of CSF. However, in the patients who presented febrile neutropenia, it was more severely decreased from 86.8 +/- 6.8 (%) to 60.0 +/- 9.9 (%) at day 7 and 56.8 +/- 5.0 (%) at day 14 without administration of CSF. When M-CSF was administered to all patients in the next course with the same dose of chemotherapy, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was significantly decreased (P = 0.0195), and the duration of fever (>or= 38.0 degrees C) and high serum C-reactive protein (CRP) (>or= 2.0 mg/dl) were also significantly shortened (P = 0.0023, P = 0.0051). Moreover, in these M-CSF-treated patients, the percentage of superoxide anion production by granulocytes was maintained at the level before chemotherapy. These findings indicate that severe impairment of granulocyte function leads to febrile neutropenia, and that M-CSF reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia by maintaining or improving granulocyte function.

Haemopoietic growth factors in paediatric oncology: a review of the literature

Recombinant haemopoietic growth factors (HGFs) are an attractive adjunct to reduce morbidity from chemotherapy regimens and their use has become widespread in paediatric oncology. Although patients receiving HGFs often have faster haematological recovery after intensive chemotherapy, this does not always translate into meaningful clinical benefits. This article reviews the clinical effectiveness of HGFs in a variety of different contexts. Most published studies have used granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) as prophylaxis to ameliorate the subsequent neutropenia following intensive chemotherapy. These 2 agents have also been used to mobilise peripheral blood stem cells for autologous transplantation. HGFs specific for anaemia and thrombocytopenia are currently in paediatric clinical trials and it is hoped that the proper context and administration strategy can be found to make their use clinically effective. This article also reviews data on toxicity, specifically focusing on differences between various formulations of growth factors. HGFs are expensive, and cost-benefit analyses reviewed in this article give an important perspective on the financial aspects of paediatric cancer care. Because HGFs do not benefit every child receiving chemotherapy and overuse increases costs and may result in unnecessary adverse effects, evidence-based guidelines for their rational use in paediatric oncology are proposed.

A randomized prospective multicentre trial of cefpirome versus piperacillin-tazobactam in febrile neutropenia

Fever is frequently the only clinical sign of infection in patients with chemo-induced neutropenia. In this setting, empirical administration of broad spectrum antibiotics must be rapid. The aim of this work was to compare, for the first time, cefpirome (CPO) and piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) in a large randomized trial. Two hundred-eight febrile neutropenic episodes (FNE) (> or = 38.5 degrees C and ANC < or = 0.5 giga/l) were treated by randomization, as first line therapy, using either CPO 2 g x 2/day (105 cases) or PT 4 g x 3/day (103 cases), alone (CPO: 15/PT: 15), or plus aminoglycoside (165 cases, CPO: 82/PT: 83) or quinolone (CPO: 2/PT: 2). There were 131 men and 77 women aged between 17 and 83 years (median: 49) who received chemotherapy (n = 160) or allogeneic (n = 10) or autologous (n = 38) stem cell transplantations. Underlying diseases were: acute leukemia (n = 131), lymphoma (n = 33), myeloma (n = 16), solid tumor (n = 8), myeloproliferative disorder (n = 9), chronic lymphoid leukemia (n = 5), aplastic anemia (n = 3), myelodysplasia (n = 3). Distribution of age, neutropenia duration (median: 17 days), underlying disease, and protocol therapy duration (median: 11 days) was comparable in both arms. A microbiologically documented infection (MDI) was evidenced in 57 cases (27%). Bacteria were isolated from blood cultures in 54 cases (Gram positive: 32 cases). Their in vitro susceptibility rates to CPO and PT were not different. Two days after antibiotics initiation, clinical (fever disappearance) and microbiological (culture negativation) success rates (SR) were 62% for CPO versus 61% for PT and 50% versus 55% respectively in case of MDI (p = 0.89). Two deaths and 77 failures were registered. At the end of protocol, SR (no antibiotic change/absence of superinfection) was 59% with CPO versus 50% with PT (p = 0.27) and 53% versus 40% respectively in the 151 cases with neutropenia > or = 10 days (p = 0.17). The occurrence of side effects was similar in both arms. In our hands, the efficacy of CPO and PT was comparable for treating FNE.

Economic impact of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in breast cancer: estimates from two national databases

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the economic burden of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in female breast cancer hospital admissions in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

PATIENTS

Female admissions with a breast cancer diagnosis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

By reviewing two national databases (Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project, MarketScan), length of stay and charge or payment/admission were estimated from 1994-1996. Neutropenic and febrile neutropenic admissions were longer and incurred higher charges and payments than nonneutropenic and afebrile neutropenic admissions, respectively (p<0.05). The difference in mean charges between neutropenic and nonneutropenic admissions decreased from $13,143 in 1994 to $6913 in 1996, whereas the difference in payment was $4957 (adjusted to 1996 dollars). The difference in mean charges between febrile and afebrile neutropenic admissions decreased from $11,570 in 1994 to $2873 in 1996, whereas the difference in payment was $2390 (adjusted to 1996 dollars).

CONCLUSION

There was a trend toward decreased charges for inpatient admissions with neutropenia in patients with breast cancer (1994-1996). Interventions that reduce the frequency of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia could reduce hospitalization costs of breast cancer admissions.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been shown to help prevent febrile neutropenia in certain subgroups of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their role in treating febrile neutropenia is controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate-in a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial-the efficacy of adding G-CSF to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment of patients with solid tumors and high-risk febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 210 patients with solid tumors treated with conventional-dose chemotherapy who presented with fever and grade IV neutropenia were considered to be eligible for the trial. They met at least one of the following high-risk criteria: profound neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <100/mm(3)), short latency from previous chemotherapy cycle (<10 days), sepsis or clinically documented infection at presentation, severe comorbidity, performance status of 3-4 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale), or prior inpatient status. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive the antibiotics ceftazidime and amikacin, with or without G-CSF (5 microg/kg per day). The primary study end point was the duration of hospitalization. All P values were two-sided.

RESULTS

Patients randomly assigned to receive G-CSF had a significantly shorter duration of grade IV neutropenia (median, 2 days versus 3 days; P = 0.0004), antibiotic therapy (median, 5 days versus 6 days; P = 0.013), and hospital stay (median, 5 days versus 7 days; P = 0.015) than patients in the control arm. The incidence of serious medical complications not present at the initial clinical evaluation was 10% in the G-CSF group and 17% in the control group (P = 0.12), including five deaths in each study arm. The median cost of hospital stay and the median overall cost per patient admission were reduced by 17% (P = 0.01) and by 11% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the G-CSF arm compared with the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding G-CSF to antibiotic therapy shortens the duration of neutropenia, reduces the duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and decreases hospital costs in patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia.

Colony stimulating factors in patients with fever and neutropenia

Colony stimulating factors (CSFs), are essential for the regulation of the hematopoietic system and were developed by the pharmaceutical biotechnology industry in the early 1990s for the prevention of serious neutropenic complication after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Both G-CSF and GM-CSF consistently lead to an increase in circulating white blood cells and a reduction in the incidence of fever and neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing stem-cell transplantation. Their role in improving response rates to chemotherapy and overall survival is less clear.

Impact of colony-stimulating factor therapy on clinical outcome and frequency rate of nosocomial infections in intensive care unit neutropenic patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, filgrastim) reduces the mortality rate and the frequency rate of nosocomial infections in neutropenic patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive case series analysis.

SETTING

Medical ICU of a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

We compared two groups of patients, according to whether or not they received G-CSF. In the ICU, 28 leukopenic patients received filgrastim (5 microg of body weight per day intravenously). In all these patients, G-CSF was continued until recovery from leukopenia, defined as a leukocyte count >1,000/mm3. A total of 33 ICU leukopenic patients did not receive G-CSF. End points included leukocyte count, bone marrow recovery, frequency of ICU nosocomial infections (pneumonia, urinary tract, and catheter-related infections), and mortality rate.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were no differences in number of patients who recovered from leukopenia or in whom blood leukocyte count increased. Nosocomial infections occurred in the same percentage in both groups. The percentage of patients who died was identical in both groups. The percentage of patients with and without filgrastim therapy who recovered from leukopenia but died, was 86% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the ICU, clinical outcome of neutropenic patients was not changed by G-CSF therapy. It is possible that G-CSF therapy may not be helpful in improving the ICU clinical outcome of neutropenic patients. Additional controlled studies designed to address this question are warranted.

Growth factor practice patterns among pediatric oncologists: results of a 1998 Pediatric Oncology Group Survey. Economic Evaluation Working Group the Pediatric Oncology Group

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on growth factor (GF) use recommend applying adult-derived guidelines in pediatric oncology. An ASCO survey of adult oncology GF use determined the preference for first degree prophylaxis (use of GF when febrile neutropenia [FN] is expected to be high in untreated patients), second-degree prophylaxis (administration of GF after a documented episode of FN on a previous cycle of chemotherapy), and intervention in the treatment of FN. Similar preferences have not been evaluated in pediatrics. The purpose of this study was to (1) characterize GF use in pediatric oncology; (2) correlate use patterns with demographic factors; and (3) compare the Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) and ASCO surveys. The ASCO survey was revised for use within pediatric oncology and was mailed to the physician membership of POG; 341 were returned (86% completion rate). Comparisons were made with the ASCO survey. Most (76%) physicians said GF use was determined by protocol requirements and most (70%) patients were entered on POG protocols. GF use as first-degree prophylaxis was selected 40% of the time, which was significantly greater than in adults; this was most influenced by anticipated duration of neutropenia (> or =7 days). The severity of the initial clinical course (e.g., neutropenia, infection) influenced use in second-degree prophylaxis; dose reduction alone was never selected. For FN, GF use was 45%, with lower preferences in uncomplicated FN (16%-38%) compared with complicated FN (66%). POG respondents endorse greater use of GF for first-and second-degree prophylaxis but less use in uncomplicated FN than do ASCO respondents. These patterns may reflect different strategies, including the role of chemotherapy, value of dose intensity, and perceived toxicity of regimens. Given these differences, adult-based guidelines may not be appropriate for pediatrics.