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

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial

PURPOSE

Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy.

METHODS

Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk.

RESULTS

Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Underutilisation of prophylactic G-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy

Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, especially in patients with node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer. Guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia. In this study, we aimed to explore the use of G-CSF as a primary prophylactic and determine the factors influencing its use. This retrospective study used nationwide claims data from the National Inpatient Sample compiled by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea from 2018. The claims data included 10% of inpatients admitted at least once in 2018 and 1% of outpatients who were not admitted. Female patients with breast cancer who received an adjuvant TC regimen after surgery were selected. Primary prophylactic G-CSF was defined as G-CSF prescribed within two days of the first cycle of TC. The factors influencing its utilisation were investigated using the chi-square test and a multiple logistic regression model. A total of 229 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who received primary prophylactic G-CSF treatment after the first cycle of TC was 55.5%. The factors positively influencing G-CSF utilization were patients' age ≥65 years, location (i.e. metropolitan areas), and the type of healthcare facility (i.e. non-tertiary hospitals). The use of prophylactic G-CSF in patients with breast cancer who received the adjuvant TC regimen was insufficient. The use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be emphasised to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia among patients receiving a myelosuppressive TC regimen.

Advances in the pharmacological management of neutropenia in solid tumors: the advent of biosimilars

Introduction: Severe neutropenia and infections are potentially life-threatening complications of cytotoxic antineoplastic therapies and often require hospitalization with a severe economic impact. Furthermore, hematological toxicity frequently results in chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that could interfere with disease control.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) including pegylated molecules, as well as more recent biosimilar G-CSFs, focusing on the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of these compounds.Expert opinion: The administration of hematopoietic growth factors in primary and secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia is a standard supportive care measure. Recently, several biosimilars have been developed. The market for biosimilar agents seems to be increasing over time thanks to their similar effectiveness and safety, compared with their originators, but lower costs.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice

Objectives

To evaluate the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in US patients with selected metastatic cancers and chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and associated outcomes among the subgroup who did not receive prophylaxis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at four US health systems and included adults with metastatic cancer (breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy (2009–2017). Patients were stratified by FN risk level based on risk factors and chemotherapy (low/unclassified risk, intermediate risk without any risk factors, intermediate risk with ≥ 1 risk factor [IR + 1], high risk [HR]). G-CSF use was evaluated among all patients stratified by FN risk, and FN/FN-related outcomes were evaluated among patients who did not receive first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Among 1457 metastatic cancer patients, 20.5% and 28.1% were classified as HR and IR + 1, respectively. First-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis use was 48.5% among HR patients and 13.9% among IR + 1 patients. In the subgroup not receiving first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis, FN incidence in cycle 1 was 7.8% for HR patients and 4.8% for IR + 1 patients; during the course, corresponding values were 16.9% and 15.9%. Most (> 90%) FN episodes required hospitalization, and mortality risk ranged from 7.1 to 26.9% across subgroups.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, the majority of metastatic cancer chemotherapy patients for whom G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended did not receive it; FN incidence in this subgroup was notably high. Patients with elevated FN risk should be carefully identified and managed to ensure appropriate use of supportive care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05715-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

The purpose of the study is to describe oncologists' perceptions and opinions about patient eligibility, guidelines, and barriers for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), overall and stratified by their affiliation with the Oncology Care Model (OCM). In May 2018, we invited and recruited practicing US oncologists from a national database for an online survey. Level of agreement was identified using a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 200 participating oncologists, 70 were OCM-affiliated. Overall, 65% of oncologists agreed or strongly agreed that all patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) should receive prophylactic G-CSF, and half agreed or strongly agreed that benefits of G-CSF outweigh the potential adverse effects. The most common barriers to G-CSF use for patients at high risk of FN included patient refusal (37.1% of OCM-affiliated oncologists vs. 21.5% of non-OCM-affiliated oncologists), not on protocol/not supported by guidelines (32.9% vs. 23.1%), lack of reimbursement to practice (30.0% vs. 15.4%), and concerns about insurance coverage (22.9% vs. 26.9%). More OCM-affiliated oncologists reported that their practices offer and strongly encourage adherence to a specific protocol for G-CSF use (49.2%) versus non-OCM oncologists (31.3%). Despite recommendations from national guidelines and strong evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials, only two thirds of oncologists agree or strongly agree that all patients at high risk of FN should receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Decisions about G-CSF prophylaxis may be affected by factors other than risk of FN, such as patient choice, practice protocols/guidelines, lack of reimbursement, and insurance coverage.

Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey

Purpose

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and related costs of using two different molecules of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim - LENO or filgrastim - FIL) as primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a hematological inpatient setting.

Methods

The primary endpoints of the analysis were the efficacy of the two G-CSFs in terms of the level of white blood cells, hemoglobin and platelets at the end of the treatment and the per capita direct medical costs related to G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Two hundred twelve patients (96 LENO, 116 FIL) have been evaluated. The following statistically significant differences have been observed between FIL and LENO: the use of a higher number of vials (11 vs 7; P<0.03) to fully recover bone marrow, a higher grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation (29.3% vs 16.7%; P=0.031) and an increased number of days of hospitalization (8 vs 5; P<0.005). A longer hospital stay before discharge was necessary (12 vs 10), which reflects the higher final costs per patient (median treatment cost per cycle 10.706 € for LENO, compared to 12.623 € for FIL).

Conclusion

The use of LENO has been associated with a lower number of days of hospitalization, number of vials and less incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation. LENO seems to be cost-saving when compared with FIL (-15.2%).

Reducing Overuse of Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: Evidence From a Decision Support–Enabled Program

Purpose:

Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are frequently overused for the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study design was used to analyze commercial claims data in adults with lung cancer initiated on chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented at oncology practices in phases across 14 US states. Patients were assigned to intervention and nonintervention states according to whether they resided in service areas where the tool had been implemented. Patients were followed up to 6 months after initiating chemotherapy. Difference in pre- and postimplementation CSF use and FN incidence rates were compared with the use of difference-in-differences (DID) models that were adjusted for baseline FN risk factors.

Results:

The study population of 3,467 patients (intervention states: pre, 707; post, 1,150; nonintervention states: pre, 636; post, 974) showed no significant differences in FN risk factors at baseline. In adjusted results before and after implementation, CSF use decreased from 48.4% to 35.6% in the intervention states versus 43.2% to 44.4% in the nonintervention states (DID, −8.7%; 95% CI, −14.65% to −2.67%; P ≤ .001). The rates of FN were consistent for both groups in both periods, with no statistical difference in trend for the intervention (2.8% to 4.3%) versus the nonintervention (3.1% to 5.1%) states (DID, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.35 to 0.10; P = .927).

Conclusion:

These findings demonstrate that a decision support-enabled utilization management tool can improve risk-appropriate, guideline-adherent CSF use in patients with lung cancer.

Use of a German longitudinal prescription database (LRx) in pharmacoepidemiology

Large epidemiological databases are often used to examine matters pertaining to drug utilization, health services, and drug safety. The major strength of such databases is that they include large sample sizes, which allow precise estimates to be made. The IMS^® LRx database has in recent years been used as a data source for epidemiological research. The aim of this paper is to review a number of recent studies published with the aid of this database and compare these with the results of similar studies using independent data published in the literature. In spite of being somewhat limited to studies for which comparative independent results were available, it was possible to include a wide range of possible uses of the LRx database in a variety of therapeutic fields: prevalence/incidence rate determination (diabetes, epilepsy), persistence analyses (diabetes, osteoporosis), use of comedication (diabetes), drug utilization (G-CSF market) and treatment costs (diabetes, G-CSF market). In general, the results of the LRx studies were found to be clearly in line with previously published reports. In some cases, noticeable discrepancies between the LRx results and the literature data were found (e.g. prevalence in epilepsy, persistence in osteoporosis) and these were discussed and possible reasons presented. Overall, it was concluded that the IMS^® LRx database forms a suitable database for pharmacoepidemiological studies.

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.

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a Canadian outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Data on real-life utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (g-csfs) in Canada are limited. The objective of the present study was to describe the reasons for, and the patterns of, g-csf use in selected outpatient oncology clinics in Ontario and Quebec.

METHODS

In a retrospective longitudinal cohort study, a review of medical records from 9 Canadian oncology clinics identified patients being prescribed filgrastim (fil) and pegfilgrastim (peg). Patient characteristics, reasons for g-csf use, and treatment patterns were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Medical records of 395 patients initiating g-csf therapy between January 2008 and January 2009 were included. Of this population, 80% were women, and breast cancer was the predominant diagnosis (59%). The most commonly prescribed g-csf was fil (56% in Ontario and 98% in Quebec). The most frequent reason for g-csf use was primary prophylaxis (42% for both fil and peg), followed by secondary prophylaxis (37% fil, 41% peg). Those proportions varied by tumour type and chemotherapy regimen. Delayed g-csf administration (more than 1 day after the end of chemotherapy) was frequently observed for fil, but rarely reported for peg, and that finding was consistent across tumours and concurrent chemotherapy regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of g-csf varies with the malignancy type and the provincial health care setting. The most commonly prescribed g-csf agent was fil, and most first g-csf prescriptions were for primary prophylaxis. Delays were frequently observed for patients receiving fil, but were rarely reported for those receiving peg.

Use of pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis and risk of infection, by chemotherapy cycle and regimen, among patients with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis by cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, and cycle in a real-world setting to assess if practice conforms to clinical guidelines, which recommend G-CSF prophylaxis every cycle when a patient's risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is 20% or greater, and to describe the incidence of FN among patients who discontinue pegfilgrastim (peg) prophylaxis.

METHODS

The cohort was selected from administrative claims data and includes adults diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast cancer (BC) who began chemotherapy 2005-2010.

RESULTS

About 83.2% of the 4,470 patients with BC treated with dose-dense doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (ddAC), 83.6% of 2,197 patients with BC treated with docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC), and about 55.6% of the 2,722 patients with NHL treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, with or without prednisone for 3-week cycles (CHOP-R Q3W) received peg prophylaxis in cycle 1. Among patients on these regimens who received peg prophylaxis in cycle 1 and were still on the regimen in cycle 4, about 90% received peg prophylaxis in that cycle. Among patients with BC or NHL who discontinued G-CSF, the incidence proportion of infection or FN varied by regimen and cycle, with a range from 0 to 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical guidelines recommending G-CSF prophylaxis with chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of FN, many NHL and BC patients do not receive FN prophylaxis in cycle 1. However, among patients who receive G-CSF in cycle 1 and remain on the regimen, the majority appear to continue prophylaxis as indicated.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) patterns of use in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Guidelines recommend primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) prophylaxis (PPG) in patients with a high risk (HR, >20 %) of developing FN. We performed a retrospective analysis using a subset of the Medicare 5 % database to assess patterns of G-CSF use and FN occurrence among elderly cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

Chemotherapy courses for patients aged 65+ years were identified; only the first course was used for this analysis. Using clinical guidelines, chemotherapy regimens were classified as HR or intermediate risk (IR) for FN. The first administration of G-CSF was classified as either PPG (within the first 5 days of the first cycle), secondary prophylaxis, or reactive.

RESULTS

Twelve thousand seven hundred seven courses across five tumor types were classified as having a HR or IR regimen. G-CSF was used in 24.5-73.8 % of patients receiving a HR FN regimen, with the highest use in breast cancer or NHL. Except for breast cancer (where PPG was used in 52.1 %), PPG was given in less than half of patients receiving a HR regimen. Depending on the tumor type, 4.8-22.6 % of patients with a HR regimen had a neutropenia-related hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines recommend PPG with HR FN regimens and older age (>65 years), an important risk factor for developing severe neutropenic complications. However, our results show that in this elderly population, PPG was not routinely used (range 4.8-52.1 %) in patients receiving HR FN regimens. Careful attention to FN risk factors, including chemotherapy regimen and patient age, is needed when planning treatment strategies.

Temporal and Geographic Variations in the Receipt of Colony-Stimulating Factors and Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in a Large Retrospective Cohort of Older Women With Breast Cancer From 2000 to 2009

The purpose of this study was to use the most recent national data for a large cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer to evaluate temporal trend of receiving hematopoietic growth factors from 2000 to 2009 and to examine significant factors associated with increasing trends and geographic variations. We identified 26,130 women aged 65-89 years who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received chemotherapy in 2000-2009 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) were identified if there was a claim from the following procedure codes: filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were identified if there was a claim from the following procedure codes: epoetin or darbepoetin. Overall, 51.7% of patients with breast cancer received CSFs, which increased from 21.7% in 2000 to 63.2% in 2009. The percentage of patients receiving pegfilgrastim increased from 2.7% in 2000 to 19.5% in 2003 and then continuously to 49.7% in 2009. The overall percentage of patients receiving ESAs was 39.3%, which increased from 26.4% in 2000 to 60.8% in 2006, and then decreased significantly from 40.7% in 2007 to 12.9% in 2009. The receipt of both CSFs and ESAs differed significantly across different geographic areas. The receipt of CSFs continued to increase from 2000 to 2009, and pegfilgrastim started to replace filgrastim since 2003. The receipt of ESAs increased until 2006 and then declined substantially due to the black box warning. There were substantial geographic variations in the use of these hematopoietic growth factors.

Efficacy and safety analysis of once per cycle pegfilgrastim and daily lenograstim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy FEC 100: a pilot study

Background

Neutropenia is a common toxicity in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this prospective pilot study, we compared the efficacy and safety profiles of pegfilgrastim administered subcutaneously once per cycle and lenograstim administered subcutaneously daily six times per cycle, for primary neutropenia prophylaxis in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Twenty women were enrolled. All patients received epirubicin 100 mg/m² with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² on day 1 and every 21 days thereafter, according to the FEC 100 chemotherapy regimen. Eight patients received a single dose of pegfilgrastim on day 2, while 12 patients were treated with daily administration of lenograstim from days five to ten. Absolute neutrophil count and duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia were monitored using seriated blood samples. The incidence of bone pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 75% in patients who received pegfilgrastim, and 25% in patients who received lenograstim. One case of febrile neutropenia was shown in pegfilgrastim patients. The mean duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 2 days in pegfilgrastim group versus 1.4 days in the lenograstim group. Bone pain was present in 37.5% of pegfilgrastim patients versus 58.3% of lenograstim patients. The mean duration of bone pain in the pegfilgrastim group was 4 days versus 6 days in the lenograstim group.

Conclusion

In our experience, a single injection of pegfilgrastim was less effective for controlling neutropenia than six daily injections of lenograstim. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and lenograstim were similar with a lower incidence of bone pain in patients treated with pegfilgrastim.

Use of colony-stimulating factors with chemotherapy: opportunities for cost savings and improved outcomes

Myeloid colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) from high-risk chemotherapy regimens administered to patients at 20% or greater risk of FN, but little is known about their use in clinical practice. We evaluated CSF use in a multiregional population-based cohort of lung and colorectal cancer patients (N = 1849). Only 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8% to 26%) patients treated with high-risk chemotherapy regimens received CSFs, compared with 18% (95% CI = 16% to 20%) and 10% (95% CI = 8% to 12%) of patients treated with intermediate- (10%-20% risk of FN) and low-risk (<10% risk of FN) chemotherapy regimens, respectively. Using a generalized estimating equation model, we found that enrollment in a health maintenance organization (HMO) was strongly associated with a lower adjusted odds of discretionary CSF use, compared with non-HMO patients (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.60, P < .001). All statistical tests were two-sided. Overall, 96% (95% CI = 93% to 98%) of CSFs were administered in scenarios where CSF therapy is not recommended by evidence-based guidelines. This finding suggests that policies to decrease CSF use in patients at lower or intermediate risk of FN may yield substantial cost savings without compromising patient outcomes.

Bone pain from granulocyte colony stimulating factor: does clinical trial sponsorship by a pharmaceutical company influence its reporting?

It is alleged that pharmaceutical companies sometimes unfairly present clinical trial results. To our knowledge, studies have not explored whether such alleged unfair reporting also occurs in the testing of palliative care agents in cancer patients, a particularly vulnerable group. Therefore, a systematic search was conducted to retrieve all published, prospective clinical trials that used granulocyte colony stimulating factor starting in 2003. Because granulocyte colony stimulating factor can cause severe bone pain - a concerning but historically under-reported symptom in cancer patients - this symptom was assessed to determine whether differences in reporting occurred based on pharmaceutical company-sponsorship. A total of 239 published clinical trials met the present study's eligibility criteria and were retrievable. Within this entire group of studies, 65 (27%) were pharmaceutical company-sponsored, and only 31 (13%) reported on bone pain. However, pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials reported on bone pain at a higher rate compared with other studies: 23% versus 9% (P= 0.005), and this conclusion did not change after adjusting for dose, use of the slow release formulation and year of publication. The reporting of adverse events from cancer symptom control and palliative care interventions should be improved - especially in trials not sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Implementing a web-based oncology protocol system in Australia: evaluation of the first 3 years of operation

BACKGROUND

EviQ is a web-based oncology protocol system launched across Australia in 2005 (http://www.eviq.org.au). We evaluated eviQ use at the point-of-care and determined the factors impacting on its uptake and routine use in the first three years of operation.

METHODS

We conducted a suite of qualitative and quantitative studies with over 200 Australian oncology physicians, nurses and pharmacists working at treatment centres in diverse geographical locations.

RESULTS

EviQ was part of routine care at many hospitals; however, the way in which it was used at the point-of-care varies according to clinician roles and hospital location. We identified a range of factors impacting on eviQ uptake and routine use. Infrastructure, such as availability of point-of-care computers, and formal policies endorsing eviQ are fundamental to increasing uptake. Furthermore, the level of clinical and computer experience of end-users, the attitudes and behaviour of clinicians, endorsement and promotion strategies, and level and type of eviQ education all need to be considered and managed to ensure that the system is being used to its full potential.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that the dissemination of web-based treatment protocols does not guarantee widespread use. Organisational, environmental and clinician-specific factors play a role in uptake and utilisation. The deployment of sufficient computer infrastructure, implementation of targeted training programmes and hospital policies and investment in marketing approaches are fundamental to uptake and continued use. This study highlights the value of ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure systems like eviQ achieve their primary purpose - reducing treatment variation and improving quality of care.

Impact of primary prophylaxis on febrile neutropenia within community practices in the US

OBJECTIVE

To determine if granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) than non-primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cohort study of medical records from a random sample of patients with solid tumours and lymphomas treated in 99 community oncology practices in 2003 (n=5319). Consecutively-sampled patients treated with chemotherapy and either filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) or no G-CSF were included (n=3123). Multivariate logistic regression estimated the odds of FN in patients receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis (within 3 days of first chemotherapy cycle) compared with non-primary prophylaxis (delayed or no G-CSF).

RESULTS

Patients receiving primary prophylaxis were less likely to develop FN than patients receiving non-primary prophylaxis (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71, p<0.001). Chemotherapy characteristics were associated with development of FN including, receipt of at least three chemotherapy drugs versus one (OR=2.13, 95% CI 1.17-3.89, p=0.014) and regimens with at least one myelosuppressive drug (OR=2.37, 95% CI 1.19-4.73, p=0.014).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis had significantly lower odds of developing FN than those receiving non-primary prophylaxis. Incidence of FN may be underestimated, as care not recorded in the medical oncologist's chart was not captured.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Opportunities for Pharmacist Involvement

Purpose

This article highlights the clinical impact of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and reviews the clinical evidence supporting the updated guideline recommendations from leading scientific organizations that focus on cancer care regarding the use of myeloid growth factors to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) from chemotherapy. The aim is to provide insight for practicing pharmacists regarding how they can be more proactive in developing best-practice strategies for the management of CIN as well as the prevention of FN.

Summary

CIN, the primary dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy, is common in many tumor types that are treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and occurs with the greatest frequency in the first cycle of treatment. Treatment with myeloid growth factors, or colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), has shown to be effective in reducing the risk, severity, and duration of FN from chemotherapy. Despite recent revisions to various clinical guidelines that have resulted in alignment on the recommendation for prophylactic CSF use in patients with a greater than or equal to 20% risk of developing FN, a gap remains between actual clinical usage and best practice. Pharmacists are key members of multidisciplinary health care teams and are uniquely positioned to evaluate current practice and develop strategies that ensure appropriate CSF use. This paper summarizes the recent changes to CSF guidelines, reviews clinical data that support those changes, and discusses strategies for pharmacist involvement in the management of CIN and FN prevention using real-world examples of improvement initiatives.

Conclusion

Neutropenia is a dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy that has significant implications for effective cancer treatment and patient health outcomes. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to perform various interventions, which help ensure appropriate CSF use and improve the management of CIN.

[Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology: a review of the literature]

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology aims to improve both the quality of care and the control of costs.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A Medline search of the literature allowed analysis of the published studies of the evaluation of clinical practice. They showed that though 82-95% of patients with small cell bronchial carcinoma were treated with a combination of etoposide and cisplatin, less than half of the patients with non-small cell cancer received treatment.

VIEWPOINT

Various factors such as age, comorbidity, race, socio-economic status and gender affect the treatment decisions. There is also a discrepancy between the trial data and clinical practice that could be explained by two factors. On one hand advances are not always adopted by doctors and on the other hand the patient populations treated may sometimes be different from those in the trials.

CONCLUSION

Though the number of published studies is still low an increase is to be expected on account of the publication of new regulations concerning the evaluation of clinical practice and the appropriate use of drugs.

Temporal and geographic variation in the use of hematopoietic growth factors in older women receiving breast cancer chemotherapy: findings from a large population-based cohort

PURPOSE

Hematopoietic growth factors have played a major role in preventing infection and shortening the duration of neutropenia in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Little information is available on how these growth factors are used in patients with cancer outside the clinical trial setting. We performed descriptive and exploratory analyses on the patterns and correlates of the use of hematopoietic growth factors in community-dwelling elderly patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 5,843 women from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked data cohorts who were diagnosed with breast cancer at age 65 or older in 1992 to 1999 from the 11 SEER areas and received chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 17.3% of the elderly women with breast cancer chemotherapy received filgrastim and 6.8% received epoetin. The use of the growth factors increased significantly over time from 1992 to 1999 (P < .001 for trend). Compared with patients diagnosed in 1992 to 1994, patients diagnosed in 1998 to 1999 were more than five times and 65 times more likely to receive filgrastim and epoetin, respectively, after controlling for other factors such as age and comorbidity. There also was substantial geographic variation in the use of hematopoietic growth factors, ranging from 10.6% in Seattle to 22.9% in Atlanta. Significant predictors of growth factors included patient age, race, tumor stage, and comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

There were substantial temporal and geographic variations in the use of hematopoietic growth factors among patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. The nationwide and population-based Medicare claims provide potential for examining the effectiveness, medical costs, and cost effectiveness of hematopoietic growth factors in the community.

Protocols for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in clinical oncology practices

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is managed in different ways in clinical practice. Chemotherapy dose reductions and delays are used more often than proactive, first-cycle use of colony-stimulating factors, but such dose modifications can result in suboptimal treatment outcomes. This article reviews how 3 oncology practices have used practice pattern studies to assess and improve their quality of care, particularly in the management of neutropenia. These practices analyzed their records for the occurrence of neutropenia and for delays or reductions in chemotherapy doses. Once baseline measurements of quality of care were established, the practices developed guidelines to optimize their management of neutropenia. The practice patterns were assessed again after the guidelines had been implemented, to determine the effect of these guidelines on clinical outcomes. All 3 practices had fewer delays and reductions of chemotherapy doses after the guidelines were used. These differences were both clinically and statistically significant. Clinical experience shows that nurses are well positioned to assess which patients may be at the greatest risk for neutropenia and its complications and therefore should be treated with colony-stimulating factors. Practice guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors are being developed, but broader acceptance of these guidelines is needed to support nurses' recommendations.

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.

Antidepressant prescribing in community cancer care

GOALS

To describe patterns of antidepressant (ADs) prescribing in community oncology practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected using an electronic medical record on all staged breast, colon, and lung cancer patients in three community-based oncology practices. The data were analyzed retrospectively, using descriptive and bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression modeling. There were 850 breast, 299 colon, and 473 lung cancer patients identified in this analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 19.2% of breast, 11% of colon, and 13.7% of lung cancer patients had been prescribed ADs during the 2-year period. The clinic in which cancer treatment was received predicted AD prescribing. The relationship between AD administration and age proved to be nonlinear; the pattern exhibited an "inverted U" shape. Patients with comorbidities and on pain medications were more likely to be administered ADs. Colon cancer patients on pain medications were five times more likely to be administered ADs than those not on pain medications.

CONCLUSIONS

While some predictors of AD prescribing appear to be consistent with other studies, such as being on pain medication, there is still a great amount of variability in prescribing patterns across community practices, age groups, and cancer diagnoses. This study demonstrates that prescriptions of ADs seem to be influenced by parameters other than psychopathology. Given the importance of major depression in oncology care, diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and prescription patterns of psychotropics should be part of the routine monitoring and quality management in oncology patient care.

Approaches to combat with confounding by indication in observational studies of intended drug effects

There has been a resurgence of controversy about the usefulness of observational data to study the efficacy of drugs. Nearly every week a researcher makes some criticism of clinical trials or justifies observational research into intended effects, with other researchers offering a contradictory viewpoint. Literature reviews are not useful in this regard because the contradictory studies will not usually be carried out. Some methods are discussed which may have potential utility in the study of intended effects. There may be a marginal role for statistical techniques such as propensity scores and confounder scores. More promising techniques may include ecological analyses, restriction of subjects and blinded prospective review. Because it is currently unknown when the observational study of drug efficacy is possible, we should arguably always carry out a study of the determinants of prescribing first, and possibly consider using the various techniques that are outlined in this article.

G-CSF as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in SCLC

OBJECTIVES

In 1991, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was reported as the first tumour type where colony stimulating factor (CSF) support was clinically effective. We reviewed 13 health services research studies that addressed CSF use as supportive care for SCLC.

METHODS

Findings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership surveys, patterns of care studies, ASCO evidence-based guidelines and cost-effectiveness studies for CSF use were reviewed.

RESULTS

For primary prophylaxis for SCLC, ASCO CSF clinical guidelines clearly do not support granulocyte (G)-CSF use. Cost-effectiveness models indicate that CSF use in this setting is associated with as much as US$1900 incremental patient care costs per cycle given an 18% febrile neutropenia rate. ASCO membership surveys found that < 10% of respondents supported CSF as primary prophylaxis while a patterns-of-care study found 55% use. In the secondary prophylaxis setting, ASCO CSF guidelines in 1994, 1996 and 1997 were equally supportive of CSF use versus dose reduction but dose-reduction was considered the preferred option in 2000. Over half of the ASCO member respondents in 1994 and in 1997 supported G-CSF use; cost-effectiveness models indicated that CSF use incurred an additional US$144 and 277 per cycle and the patterns of care study found 27% use of CSF in the community practice setting.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2002, the findings of a decade of health services studies have shifted towards not being supportive of CSF use for primary or secondary prophylaxis for SCLC patients.