Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: the American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. The Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Biosimilar Filgrastim Uptake And Costs Among Commercially Insured, Medicare Advantage

In 2015 the Food and Drug Administration approved filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first US biosimilar. Following rapid uptake, by March 2018 filgrastim-sndz accounted for 47 percent of filgrastim administrations among commercially insured and 42 percent among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The initial cost difference between the originator and biosimilar was 31 percent in the former population but negligible in the latter.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

A Phase 2, International, Multicenter, Open-label Clinical Trial of Subcutaneous Tbo-Filgrastim in Pediatric Patients With Solid Tumors Undergoing Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy

This phase 2, multicenter, open-label trial investigated the safety and tolerability of tbo-filgrastim in pediatric patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In total, 50 patients 1 month to below 16 years of age with solid tumors without bone marrow involvement were stratified into 3 age groups (2 infants, 30 children, 18 adolescents) and prophylactically administered tbo-filgrastim 5 µg/kg body weight once daily subcutaneously. The administration started after the last chemotherapy treatment in week 1 of the first cycle and continued until the expected neutrophil nadir had passed, and the neutrophil count had recovered to 2.0×10/L. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of tbo-filgrastim; secondary endpoints included efficacy. The mean (SD) number of doses administered was 9.2 (2.83) in children and 7.3 (1.88) in adolescents. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 24% of patients; the most common were febrile neutropenia (FN) (12%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Nine patients (18%) experienced mild treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common were musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (8%). No deaths or withdrawals occurred. The incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) was 52% and the mean (SD) duration of SN was 1.8 (2.21) days; FN incidence was 26%. A daily dose of tbo-filgrastim 5 μg/kg body weight administered to pediatric patients demonstrated a safety profile consistent with the safety profile in adult patients. The incidence of FN was on the lower end of the range reported in the literature and the SN results provide supportive data on the efficacy of tbo-filgrastim in pediatric patients.

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

PURPOSE

To prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PPG) for patients at high risk (≥ 20%) of FN. In Belgium, the use of PPG is restricted by specific reimbursement criteria. The impact of these criteria on PPG use and adherence to guidelines is unknown.

METHODS

This multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study aimed to describe PPG use by FN risk category in breast cancer patients who were scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy in outpatient clinics in Belgium during a 2-week period between 13 October and 12 December 2014.

RESULTS

In total, 490 patients were enrolled. Median age was 57.0 years. Based on their chemotherapy regimen, 53.9, 5.1 and 41.0% of patients were at a low, intermediate and high risk of FN, respectively. Overall, 39.8% of patients received PPG (17.0, 12.0 and 73.1% of those receiving low-, intermediate- and high-risk regimens, respectively). In the high-risk category, PPG was used in 89.9% of dose-dense and in 25.0% of classical chemotherapy regimens. PPG use was adherent to EORTC guidelines in 75.3% of patients (30.6% appropriate use, 44.7% appropriate non-use). EORTC guidelines would recommend PPG use in 46.1% of this study population (n = 226), and its use was reimbursable in Belgium in 76.1% of these patients (n = 172), but only 66.4% of them received PPG (n = 150).

CONCLUSIONS

Both Belgian reimbursement criteria and physician decision-making led to a proportion of patients for whom PPG treatment was recommended but finally not receiving it.

A questionnaire survey of pharmacists regarding the clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors

Background

Clinical practice guidelines should be user-friendly and confirming their penetration rate and compliance are critical.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide web-based questionnaire survey among pharmacists regarding the 2013 guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) (version 2, published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology [JSCO]) between August 24 and September 6, 2015.

Results

A total of 301 pharmacists responded; 96.0% belonged to hospitals and were board-certified pharmacists in oncology pharmacy (n = 133) and palliative pharmacy (n = 78). In addition, 61.5% of respondents (n = 185) worked for designated cancer care hospitals. The observation that 75.7% of respondents knew that the JSCO guidelines are available on the internet indicated that several pharmacists used this guideline. A high degree of usability by pharmacists was also demonstrated, as 98.0% and 51.5% of respondents, respectively, agreed with the statements “it is useful for the work of pharmacists” and “it is referred to in the actual work of pharmacists”. However, more than half of the respondents (58.4%) agreed with the phrase “there are differences from the actual work of pharmacists”.

Conclusions

Their responses indicated that the respondents used the G-CSF guidelines and viewed them positively; however, the observation that about half of the respondents reported feeling that the guidelines do not match their current practice requires additional follow-up in future studies. The use of these guidelines should be routinely assessed in order to introduce novel cancer chemotherapy regimens and long-acting G-CSF in clinical practice.

G-CSF utilization rate and prescribing patterns in United States: associations between physician and patient factors and GCSF use

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication among patients with chemotherapy-induced myelotoxicity and is associated with a number of negative outcomes including prolonged hospitalization, increased medical costs, increased risk of mortality, dose reductions, and delays. Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and pegylated G-CSF are effective at reducing risk and duration of neutropenia-related events. However, despite guidelines, the use of G-CSF and pegylated G-CSF in the United States has not been consistent and pattern of care studies have focused primarily on G-CSF. A number of studies found that G-CSF is underutilized in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatments associated with a high risk of FN, while being over utilized in patients with a low-risk FN. Wide variations in overuse, underuse, and misuse of G-CSF are associated with a number of physician and patient factors. Improved awareness of the guidelines, feedback to providers regarding proper usage, and understanding of chemotherapy regimens associated with very low risks as well as high risks (>20%) of FN is some of the approaches that could lead to improving care.

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014.

RESULTS

The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event.

CONCLUSION

G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

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.

Attitudes regarding the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors and maintenance of relative dose intensity among gynecologic oncologists

OBJECTIVE

To assess the attitudes regarding the use of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and the maintenance of relative dose intensity (RDI) by gynecologic oncologists during the administration of chemotherapy to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A nationwide survey of 608 gynecologic oncologists was performed using a 19-point questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed the following domains: (1) demographic information, (2) patterns of CSF use during first-line and relapse chemotherapies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, and (3) use of CSFs to maintain RDI.

RESULTS

The response rate to the survey was 42% (n = 255). Eighty-six percent (220/255) of the respondents routinely administer chemotherapy. In the first-line setting, 67% of physicians who routinely administer chemotherapy preferred to use CSFs for secondary prophylaxis after a neutropenic complication, whereas only 2% would use CSFs for primary prophylaxis. In the recurrent disease setting, physicians were more likely to administer a regimen with minimal myelosuppression (74% reported "likely" or "very likely"), to dose delay or modify if neutropenic complications occur (78%), or to administer CSFs for secondary prophylaxis (85%) than to dose attenuate upon initiation of chemotherapy (49%) or to administer CSFs for primary prophylaxis (46%). Most physicians would administer CSFs to maintain RDI in both the first-line (75%) and palliative settings (62%), and 49% would strive to maintain a dose intensity of more than 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most gynecologic oncologists use CSFs as secondary prophylaxis for neutropenic complications rather than as primary prophylaxis. Most gynecologic oncologists monitor RDI and use CSFs to maintain RDI in their patients with ovarian carcinoma.

Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Secondary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis During Standard-Dose Chemotherapy

Purpose

Current guidelines (ie, by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) do not recommend secondary infection prophylaxis, whereas, in contrast, caregivers prefer secondary prophylaxis to chemotherapy dose reduction after an episode of febrile neutropenia (FN). Because granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is expensive, this study investigates the economic consequences of secondary prophylactic use of different prophylactic strategies (antibiotics, antibiotics plus G-CSF, and a combined sequential approach) in a population at risk of FN, using a Markov model.

Methods

The input for the model is mainly based on the clinical outcome and patient-based cost data set (adopting the health care payer's perspective for the Netherlands) derived from a randomized study on primary prophylaxis in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients; establishing mean cost of an episode FN of €3,290 and prophylaxis of €79 (antibiotics) ± €1,616 (G-CSF) per cycle. The economic analysis was analyzed probabilistically using first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as cost per FN-free cycle.

Results

Secondary prophylaxis with antibiotics was the least expensive strategy (mean, €4,496/patient). The strategy antibiotics plus G-CSF was most expensive (mean, € 8,998/patient). Comparison of these two strategies resulted in an unacceptably high ICER (€343,110 per FN-free cycle) in the Dutch context. In scenarios using higher FN-related costs (as found in the United States), the strategies are less distinct in their monetary effects, but still favor antibiotics.

Conclusion

This model-based economic analysis demonstrates that in the Netherlands and most likely also in the United States, if secondary prophylaxis is preferred, the strategy with antibiotics is recommended.

Two Cycles of Doxorubicin, Bleomycin, Vinblastine, and Dacarbazine Plus Extended-Field Radiotherapy Is Superior to Radiotherapy Alone in Early Favorable Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Final Results of the GHSG HD7 Trial

Purpose

To investigate whether combined-modality treatment (CMT) with two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by extended-field radiotherapy (EF-RT) is superior to EF-RT alone in patients with early favorable Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).

Patients and Methods

Between 1993 and 1998, 650 patients with newly diagnosed, histology-proven HL in clinical stages IA to IIB without risk factors were enrolled onto this multicenter study and randomly assigned to receive 30 Gy EF-RT plus 10 Gy to the involved field (arm A) or two cycles of ABVD followed by the same radiotherapy (arm B).

Results

At a median observation time of 87 months, there was no difference between treatment arms in terms of complete response rate (arm A, 95%; arm B, 94%) and overall survival (at 7 years: arm A, 92%; arm B, 94%; P = .43). However, freedom from treatment failure was significantly different, with 7-year rates of 67% in arm A (95% CI, 61% to 73%) and 88% in arm B (95% CI, 84% to 92%; P ≤ .0001). This was due mainly to significantly more relapses after EF-RT only (arm A, 22%; arm B, 3%). No patient treated with CMT experienced relapse before year 3. Relapses were treated mainly with bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, or with the combination cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone/ABVD; treatment of relapse was significantly more successful in arm A than in arm B (P = .017). In total, there were 39 second malignancies, with 21 in arm A and 18 in arm B, respectively. The incidence was approximately 0.8% per year during years 2 to 9 and was highest in older patients (P < .0001) and those with “B” symptoms (P = .012).

Conclusion

CMT consisting of two cycles of ABVD plus EF-RT is more effective than EF-RT alone.

Neoadjuvant treatment with paclitaxel and epirubicin in invasive breast cancer: a phase II study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The modern management of locally advanced breast cancer includes a multimodal approach consisting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (usually given as initial treatment), surgery, radiotherapy and adjuvant hormone therapy. This therapeutic approach converts many patients with initially unresectable disease to reasonable surgical candidates, with acceptable rates of loco-regional disease control. Induction of a pathological complete response (pCR) with modern chemotherapy agents or combined with immunotherapy, when applicable, should be one of the primary goals of neoadjuvant therapy in order to achieve better disease-free and overall survival in this subset of patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is now standard for patients with locally advanced breast cancer, and this method of treatment has been extended to patients with earlier disease without affecting the treatment outcome. The objectives of this study were: (1) to conduct a phase II study to assess the efficacy and availability of epirubicin and paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting in women with locally advanced or high tumour-to-breast ratio breast cancer (no patient in either of these subgroups was a candidate for breast-conserving surgery prior to chemotherapy); (2) to evaluate the incidence of clinically relevant toxicity and, in particular, cardiac toxicity after treatment with an epirubicin + paclitaxel regimen in this group of patients.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase II, single-centre trial carried out in a university-affiliated tertiary-care municipal hospital, the rate of objective response, evaluated by clinical and pathological examinations, was the primary endpoint of the study. Other endpoints were the rates of breast-conserving surgery, local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival. Sixty patients were enrolled from September 1998 to September 2003 with a median follow-up of 56 months (range 16-96). All 60 women met the criteria for inclusion and agreed to participate in the study. They were diagnosed as having locally advanced or high tumour-to-breast ratio breast cancer that did not initially permit breast-conserving surgery. Epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 175 or 200 mg/m(2) were administered for five courses. Rates of adverse events were also analysed.

RESULTS

Eight patients experienced a pCR, five had a pathological partial response with an almost complete pathological response, and 39 were able to undergo breast-conserving surgery. Adverse effects were mostly of grade 1 or 2 severity. The most common adverse reactions were fatigue and neutropenic fever. One patient developed local recurrence during the median 56-month follow-up. Among examined biological markers, only estrogen receptor negativity was a strong predictor of a pCR. The rates of disease-free and overall survival following the neoadjuvant combination were similar for those who had tumours positive for the estrogen receptor and those who were negative for this.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with a combination of epirubicin and paclitaxel enabled lumpectomy in a substantial proportion of women who were previously deemed to not be suitable candidates for breast-conserving surgery. Clinical responses were not influenced by the initial tumour volume, and the only statistically significant predictor of pCR was the estrogen receptor status of the tumour.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients with cancer requires antibacterial regimens active against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. This study was performed to demonstrate the noninferiority of monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam, compared with cefepime.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized-controlled, open-label, multicenter clinical trial among high-risk patients from 34 university-affiliated tertiary care medical centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia who were undergoing treatment for leukemia or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were hospitalized for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. Patients received piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 h) or cefepime (2 g every 8 h) intravenously. The primary outcome was success (defined by defervescence without treatment modification) at 72 h of treatment, end of treatment, and test of cure in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, microbiological efficacy, the additional use of glycopeptide antibiotics, emergence of resistant bacteria, and safety.

RESULTS

For 528 subjects (265 received piperacillin-tazobactam and 263 received cefepime), success rates were 57.7% and 48.3%, respectively (P = .04) at the 72-h time point, 39.6% and 31.6% (P = .06) at end of treatment, and 26.8% and 20.5% (P = .11) at the test-of-cure visit. The analyses demonstrated noninferiority for piperacillin-tazobactam at all time points (P< or = .0001). Treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam was independently associated with treatment success in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.64; P = .035). Both regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the noninferiority and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy, compared with cefepime, for the empirical treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

Molecular Profile and Partial Functional Analysis of Novel Endothelial Cell-Derived Growth Factors that Regulate Hematopoiesis

Recent progress has been made in the identification of the osteoblastic cellular niche for hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) within the bone marrow (BM). Attempts to identify the soluble factors that regulate HSC self-renewal have been less successful. We have demonstrated that primary human brain endothelial cells (HUBECs) support the ex vivo amplification of primitive human BM and cord blood cells capable of repopulating non-obese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficient repopulating (SCID) mice (SCID repopulating cells [SRCs]). In this study, we sought to characterize the soluble hematopoietic activity produced by HUBECs and to identify the growth factors secreted by HUBECs that contribute to this HSC-supportive effect. Extended noncontact HUBEC cultures supported an eight-fold increase in SRCs when combined with thrombopoietin, stem cell factor, and Flt-3 ligand compared with input CD34(+) cells or cytokines alone. Gene expression analysis of HUBEC biological replicates identified 65 differentially expressed, nonredundant transcripts without annotated hematopoietic activity. Gene ontology studies of the HUBEC transcriptome revealed a high concentration of genes encoding extracellular proteins with cell-cell signaling function. Functional analyses demonstrated that adrenomedullin, a vasodilatory hormone, synergized with stem cell factor and Flt-3 ligand to induce the proliferation of primitive human CD34(+)CD38(-)lin(-) cells and promoted the expansion of CD34(+) progenitors in culture. These data demonstrate the potential of primary HUBECs as a reservoir for the discovery of novel secreted proteins that regulate human hematopoiesis.

Impact of five prophylactic filgrastim schedules on hematologic toxicity in early breast cancer patients treated with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy of varying intensity schedules of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) support in preventing febrile neutropenia in early breast cancer patients treated with relatively high-dose epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From October 1991 to April 1994, 506 stage I and II breast cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive, in a factorial 2 x 2 design, epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days for 4 cycles +/- lonidamine +/- G-CSF. The following five consecutive G-CSF schedules were tested every 100 randomly assigned patients: (1) 480 microg/d subcutaneously days 8 to 14; (2) 480 microg/d days 8, 10, 12, and 14; (3) 300 microg/d days 8 to 14; (4) 300 microg/d days 8, 10, 12, and 14; and (5) 300 microg/d days 8 and 12.

RESULTS

All of the G-CSF schedules covered the neutrophil nadir time. Schedule 5 was equivalent to the daily schedules (schedules 1 and 3) and to the alternate day schedules (schedules 2 and 4) with respect to incidence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (P = .79 and P = .89, respectively), rate of fever episodes (P = .84 and P = .77, respectively), incidence of neutropenic fever (P = .74 and P = .56, respectively), need of antibiotics (P = .77 and P = .88, respectively), and percentage of delayed cycles (P = .43 and P = .42, respectively). G-CSF had no significant impact on the delivered dose-intensity compared with the non-G-CSF arms.

CONCLUSION

In the adjuvant setting, the frequency of prophylactic G-CSF administration during EC could be curtailed to only two administrations (days 8 and 12) without altering outcome. This nonrandomized trial design provides support for evaluating alternative, less intense G-CSF schedules for women with early breast cancer.

Gemcitabine and liposomal doxorubicin in the salvage treatment of ovarian cancer: Updated results and long-term survival

OBJECTIVE

The combination of GEM/PLD has been tested for its efficacy on survival of recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

This is a multicenter phase II study of GEM/PLD regimen in recurrent ovarian cancer patients previously treated with at least one platinum/paclitaxel regimen, and with evidence of measurable disease. PLD, 30 mg m(-2), was administered on day 1 followed by GEM, 1000 mg m(-2), on days 1 and 8, every 21 days.

RESULTS

106 patients were available for response evaluation. 9 complete responses (8.5%) and 27 partial responses (25.5%) have been registered. 36 patients (34.0%) experienced stabilization of disease, while 34 (32.1%) cases progressed during treatment. OS was significantly shorter in platinum-resistant (median OS = 50 weeks) than in platinum-sensitive patients (median OS = 92 weeks) (P value = 0.0016). In the group of platinum-sensitive patients, cases responsive to GEM/PLD combination showed a better OS with respect to patients unresponsive to GEM/PLD (median OS = 120 weeks versus median OS = 60 weeks, P value = 0.019). The same trend was observed in platinum-resistant patients. Grade 4 hematological toxicity affected 20 patients (18%). Grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was registered in 16 patients (14.4%). Grades 3 and 4 mucositis was documented in 16 (14.4%) and 2 (1.8%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

GEM/PLD combination represents a valid approach in recurrent ovarian cancer patients. The hematological toxicity was easily managed, and the incidence and severity of PPE was low.

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.

Information given to cancer patients on diagnosis, prognosis and treatment: the clinical oncologist's perspective

The extent of information to cancer patients is, in general, culture-dependent. Information mainly refers to three aspects, namely diagnosis (Dx), prognosis (Px) and treatment (Rx), but the relative contribution of each domain to the information given overall is not available. To address this issue, we e-mailed a questionnaire to 9893 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) asking whether they agree that information about Dx, Px and Rx contribute differently to the information given to the cancer patient overall and, if so, to what extent, both in the adjuvant and advanced settings. 857 questionnaires were evaluable. There was no statistically significant difference between the contribution of these 3 domains in the adjuvant setting (33%, 34% and 33%, respectively). In subgroup analysis, medical oncologists and haematologists attributed a significantly higher contribution of Px information compared with other specialists (P < 0.05). In the advanced setting, respondents estimated a higher contribution of Px (41%) to patient information overall compared with Dx and Rx (28% and 31%, respectively; P < 0.05). This finding was more pronounced in North America than in Europe (P < 0.0001), and in Germanic-language than in Romance-language countries (P = 0.005). In conclusion, information on Dx, Px and Rx are believed to contribute differently to the information delivered to cancer patients overall, depending on the stage of disease, the cultural environment and the specialty of the physician.

Use of erythropoietin in cancer patients: assessment of oncologists' practice patterns in the United States and other countries

PURPOSE

To assess physician use of erythropoietin in cancer patients before publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology guidelines.

METHODS

Questionnaires about erythropoietin use in practice and 12 hypothetical clinical scenarios involving patients with cancer were mailed to 2000 oncologists/hematologists in the United States and 19 other countries. Response rates were 30% in the United States and 25% internationally. Data on erythropoietin use for ovarian cancer were obtained from one clinical trial. Multivariate regression models assessed predictors of erythropoietin prescription.

RESULTS

Most physicians selected a hemoglobin level < or =10 g/dL as an upper threshold for erythropoietin use (36% to 51% of U.S. physicians and 21% to 32% of foreign physicians). Frequent erythropoietin use (defined as use in at least 10% of cancer patients) was higher in the United States than elsewhere (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5 to 13.4). Among U.S. physicians, those who said they used erythropoietin frequently were more likely to be in fee-for-service than managed care settings (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.7). Those who reported never using erythropoietin practiced in countries that had lower annual per capita health care expenditures, lower proportions of privately funded health care, and a national health service (P <0.05 for all comparisons). Of 235 ovarian cancer patients who received topotecan, 38% (45/118) of U.S. patients and 2% (2/117) of European patients who developed grade 1 anemia (hemoglobin level between 10 and 12 g/dL) were treated with erythropoietin (P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Financial considerations and a hemoglobin level <10 g/dL appear to influence erythropoietin use in the United States, whereas financial considerations alone determine erythropoietin use abroad.

Involved-field radiotherapy is equally effective and less toxic compared with extended-field radiotherapy after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of the HD8 trial of the German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group

PURPOSE

To investigate whether radiotherapy can be reduced without loss of efficacy from extended field (EF) to involved field (IF) after four cycles of chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1993 and 1998, patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable HD were enrolled onto this multicenter study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (COPP) + doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for two cycles followed by radiotherapy of 30 Gy EF + 10 Gy to bulky disease (arm A) or 30 Gy IF + 10 Gy to bulky disease (arm B).

RESULTS

Of 1,204 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 1,064 patients were informative and eligible for the arm comparison (532 patients in arm A; 532 patients in arm B). The median observation time was 54 months. Five years after random assignment, the overall survival (OSran) for all eligible patients was 91% and freedom from treatment failure (FFTFran) was 83%. Survival rates at 5 years after start of radiotherapy revealed no differences for arms A and B, respectively, in terms of FFTF (85.8% and 84.2%) and OS at 5 years (90.8% and 92.4%). There also were no differences between arms A and B, respectively, in terms of complete remission (98.5% and 97.2%), progressive disease (0.8% and 1.9%), relapse (6.4% and 7.7%), death (8.1% and 6.4%), and secondary neoplasia (4.5% and 2.8%). In contrast, acute side effects including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, gastrointestinal toxicity, and pharyngeal toxicity were more frequent in the EF arm.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy volume size reduction from EF to IF after COPP + ABVD chemotherapy for two cycles produces similar results and less toxicity in patients with early-stage unfavorable HD.

Cost analyses of adjunct colony stimulating factors for older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia : can they improve clinical decision making?

Colony stimulating factors (CSF) have been shown to reduce the duration of neutropenia following intensive chemotherapy in a variety of settings, with many of these studies targeting older patients with leukaemia. We review the clinical and economic findings for use of growth factors for older adults with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML). The cost analyses were based on the perspective of the third party payer. One study, conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) randomised 207 AML patients to receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or placebo and found no significant difference in number of infections and in days of hospitalisation, 3 fewer days with an absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/microL with G-CSF, and an estimated incremental cost of only US 120 dollars with G-CSF over placebo (1997 costs). A second study, conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), randomised 119 AML patients to receive granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) or placebo and found a reduction in severe infections, 4 fewer days with an absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/microL, no significant difference in the duration of hospitalisation, and estimated cost savings of US 2310 dollars with GM-CSF (1997 costs). These data may be useful to physicians faced with concerns over clinical and economic factors associated with CSF use as adjunct therapy for older persons with AML.

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.

Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and health maintenance organizations

PURPOSE

Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings.

METHODS

ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1% to 7%). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation.

CONCLUSION

ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.

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.

The impact of age on delivered dose intensity and hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia in patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving initial CHOP chemotherapy: a risk factor analysis

The purpose of this historical case series study was to evaluate the association of age on delivered dose intensity of initial CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/prednisone) chemotherapy and the occurrence of hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia for patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Findings are reported for 12 managed community and academic practices. Medical records of 930 NHL patients not enrolled on clinical trial protocols were reviewed. We reported on 577 of the study patients (62%) who received initial CHOP chemotherapy. Median age of the patients was 65.1 years. Older patients (age > or = 65 years) had more hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia (28% vs. 16%; P < 0.05) than younger patients (age, 18-64 years). In patients with advanced-stage NHL (stage III/IV), older patients received fewer cycles of CHOP (< 6 cycles, 35% vs. 22%; P < 0.05) than younger patients. Older patients were planned for lower average relative dose intensity (ARDI < or = 80%; P < 0.05) and had more heart disease and comorbid conditions (P < 0.05) than younger patients. Multiple logistic regression models showed that older patients were more likely to receive a lower dose intensity (ARDI < or = 80%; odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62-3.72) during their first 3 cycles of therapy and to experience more hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia (odds ratio = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.43-3.30). We found the dose intensity of delivered CHOP chemotherapy for elderly patients to be less than standard CHOP therapy and the risk of hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia to be greater than in younger patients. Prospective clinical trials examining supportive care measures, such as colony-stimulating factor, for elderly NHL patients are recommended.

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.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a retrospective drug utilization evaluation comparing the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at a university medical center with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) CSFs Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

Patients who received G-CSF from June 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996, were identified through the pharmacy computer system and the medical records were reviewed for a randomly selected sample of 26% of the 289 patients identified. Outpatient, inpatient, and electronic medical records were reviewed for the indication, dosage, day of initiation, day of discontinuation, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring plan for each course of G-CSF; these records were subsequently compared with the ASCO guidelines.

RESULTS

The use of G-CSF after chemotherapy was evaluated in 51 patients who received a total of 182 courses of G-CSF. The goal of chemotherapy was curative in 61% of courses. Sixty-five percent of G-CSF courses were prescribed for primary prophylaxis. Of these, 74% followed chemotherapy in patients with an expected incidence of febrile neutropenia > or =40% or followed chemotherapy in patients with compromised marrow reserve secondary to extensive prior therapy or in patients older than 60 years. Most of the G-CSF courses (75%) were rounded to the nearest vial size. The areas of greatest departure from the ASCO guidelines included aspects of initiation and discontinuation of G-CSF courses and inadequate documentation of ANC recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate a number of specific opportunities for oncology pharmacists to improve the use of G-CSF in patients receiving chemotherapy. Recommendations were made to the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and medical oncologists to improve compliance with the ASCO guidelines.

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.

Growth factor usage patterns and outcomes in the community setting: collection through a practice-based computerized clinical information system

PURPOSE

Although use of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) is widespread and guidelines for use have been disseminated, actual practice patterns of medical oncologists are unknown. The purpose of this study was to collect these data using an office-based computerized clinical information system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected on patients at 10 community-based oncology practices. Information regarding CSF use was captured at the time of prescribing through a computerized clinical support tool and stored in a data warehouse, and an analysis was carried out retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 6,813 cancer regimens administered to 5,034 patients were evaluated for growth factor use. Overall, CSFs were used in 14% of regimens, with breast, lymphoma, lung, and ovarian being the most common cancers for which CSFs were used. In 49.4% of regimens, CSF was initiated during cycle 1, with an average duration of 1 week, and was used in two or three cycles per regimen. Afebrile neutropenia is rarely followed by CSF initiation. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is associated with fewer dose adjustments, delays, and hospitalizations when compared with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF). There is wide variation among oncologists in CSF use, and several substantial differences were noted between the prescribing behavior of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) survey-reported oncologists and actual clinical practice, as captured by the computerized clinical information system.

CONCLUSION

Computerized clinical information systems can collect detailed information regarding practice patterns of medical oncologists. ASCO physician practice survey data do not accurately reflect actual practice patterns and must be interpreted with caution. Substantial deviations from ASCO growth factor guidelines remain, and oncologists' use of CSFs demonstrates wide variation. There may be important clinical differences between G-CSF and GM-CSF, but definitive phase III trials are needed for confirmation.

Impact of ASCO guidelines for the use of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors (CSFs): survey results of fifteen Paris university hospitals

To assess whether physicians comply with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for the use of CSFs, a prospective survey was performed in 15 Paris university hospitals involved in cancer treatment in 1997. If 45% of the prescriptions complied with the guidelines, primary prophylactic administration, which represented 52% of cases, did not comply with ASCO guidelines. These results suggested that primary prophylactic administration was one major clinical situation in which physicians could benefit from guidance to use a CSFs and that criteria defined by ASCO to allow primary prophylactic administration were not applied in clinical practice.

Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: comparison of the 1994 and 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology surveys regarding ASCO clinical practice guidelines. Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee sought to assess whether more appropriate patterns of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use occurred after the publication of ASCO evidence-based practice guidelines in 1994 and 1996 for patients with solid tumors or lymphoma.

METHODS

In 1994 and 1997, questionnaires describing clinical scenarios were mailed to ASCO members who practiced medical oncology. Physicians were asked the extent to which they preferred to use a CSF for primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, or treatment of neutropenic complications. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine predictors of overall propensity to use CSFs and, when using a CSF, propensity to support longer schedules of CSF use.

RESULTS

Decreased use of CSFs was shown in the following situations: (1) treatment for febrile neutropenia without localizing signs (39% in 1994 v 29% in 1997) or with a right lower lobe infiltrate (54% v 46%); (2) primary prophylaxis with paclitaxel for ovarian cancer (20% v 11%) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (8.4% v 4.6%); and (3) secondary prophylaxis after afebrile neutropenia following chemotherapy for germ cell tumors (44.5% v 36.0%). One third fewer physicians supported the extended use of CSFs until an absolute neutrophil count >/= 10,000/mm(3) or a WBC count >/= 10,000/mm(3) was reached, both counts serving as criteria for stopping CSF therapy. However, we observed high rates of CSF use despite ASCO guideline recommendations against use in the following clinical situations: (1) primary prophylaxis in patients at low risk of febrile neutropenia (6% v 16%); (2) secondary prophylaxis late in the course of curative and palliative therapy (80% v 53%); and (3) treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (30% v 60%). In 1994 and 1997, fee-for-service physicians were more likely than other physicians to prefer use of CSF support while maintaining treatment dose and schedule instead of using dose-reduction strategies, and, when using a CSF, they were more likely to support longer CSF treatment schedules (P <.05 for both scenarios).

CONCLUSION

Decreased use and more appropriate use of CSFs in accordance with ASCO guideline recommendations occurred from 1994 to 1997, but there remain many opportunities to reduce CSF use with no clinical harm. Many oncologists continue to support the use of CSFs in scenarios and with scheduling criteria that the guidelines and evidence do not support. ASCO's evidence-based guidelines should be linked with formal continuous quality improvement initiatives to substantially improve the quality of supportive oncology care.

The association between physician reimbursement in the US and use of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors as adjunct therapy for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results from the 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Financial considerations play an important role in the delivery of medical care in the US. In 1996, revised guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) indicated that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) were unlikely to be harmful for older acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients and suggested that physicians could consider their use in this setting. In 1997, the ASCO health services research committee evaluated whether physician reimbursement was a primary determinant in the decision to use G-CSF and GM-CSF in this clinical situation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire describing clinical scenarios for a 67-year-old man with newly diagnosed de novo AML was mailed to 1500 ASCO members who practiced medical oncology and hematology. Physicians were queried about their preferences for adjunctive CSF use following induction and consolidation chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 1020 potentially eligible respondents, returned surveys were received from 672. Following induction chemotherapy, support for CSF use was 40%, similar in magnitude for that for non-use of these agents. The most important determinant of support for CSF use was being in a fee-for-service practice (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians in the US are mixed in their support for CSFs for older AML patients. Support was high in settings where CSF use was accompanied by financial profit to the physician practice, and support was low otherwise.

Prevention of infection in the immunocompromised host

The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, is accredited as a provider of continuing education in nursing by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. This learner-paced study package is designated for 1.1 contact hours. APIC's California nursing provider number is CEP 7146. This continuing medical laboratory education activity is recognized by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists as meeting the criteria for 1 CMLE credit hour. ASCP CMLE credit hours are acceptable to meet the continuing education requirements for the ASCP Board of Registry Continuing Competence Recognition Program. (See the instructions and examination at the end of the article.)Infectious diseases represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Infectious complications are often predictable and may be preventable. This article is an overview of practical considerations in the care of immunocompromised patients. Recognizing the compromised host, identifying and correcting risk factors in advance, and reducing sources of infection all play a role in prevention. Topics were chosen to include the areas of care that differ from the immune competent patient, such as diet, pet therapy, handwashing, immunizations, augmentation of host resistance, prevention of pneumonia, and antibiotic prophylaxis. National practice guidelines are cited when possible; evidence-based literature review and experience are applied to situations lacking consensus statements. Treatment decisions are made in areas for which information is often incomplete. A systematic approach to care of the immunocompromised host, tailored to the individual patient's needs, should reduce the risk of infection.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in severe chemotherapy-induced afebrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials of colony-stimulating factors in febrile patients with neutropenia after chemotherapy have not consistently shown clinical benefit. Nevertheless, the use of colony-stimulating factors to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is widespread.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in afebrile outpatients with severe chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We measured the number of days of neutropenia, rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, number of days the patient received parenteral antibiotics, and number of culture-positive infections.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 138 patients to receive G-CSF (n=71) or placebo (n=67). The median time to an absolute neutrophil count of at least 500 per cubic millimeter was significantly shorter for patients who received G-CSF (two days, vs. four days for the patients given placebo). However, there was no effect on the rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, duration of treatment with parenteral antibiotics, or number of culture-positive infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine therapeutic application of G-CSF in afebrile patients with severe neutropenia can reduce the duration of neutropenia, but this does not appear to provide practical clinical benefit.