G-CSF guideline adherence in Germany, an update with a retrospective and representative sample survey

Optimal use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis to improve survival in cancer patients receiving treatment : An expert view

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a relatively common complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can prevent FN and chemotherapy dose delays and enable the use of the higher dose intensities associated with a survival benefit; however, G‑CSF is not always used optimally. Five medical oncologists with a special interest in supportive care met to discuss the evidence for prophylaxis with G‑CSF to improve survival in cancer patients, identify reasons why this is not always done, and suggest potential solutions. The dose intensity of chemotherapy is critical for maximizing survival in cancer patients but may be reduced as a result of hematological toxicity, such as FN. Use of G‑CSF has been shown to increase the chances of achieving the planned dose intensity in various cancers, including early-stage breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. All physicians treating cancer patients should consider the use of G‑CSF prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy, paying particular attention to patient-related risk factors.

KEY MESSAGES

Strategies to optimize G‑CSF use include educating medical oncologists and pharmacists on the appropriate use of G‑CSF and informing patients about the efficacy of G‑CSF and its potential adverse effects. It is hoped that the evidence and opinions presented will help to encourage appropriate use of G‑CSF to support cancer patients at risk of FN in achieving the best possible outcomes from chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

Prescription patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with breast cancer: A real-world study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is effective for breast cancer but carries a potential risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Clinical practice guidelines have recommended prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the incidence of FN in patients receiving chemotherapy. We aimed to examine the use of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis for FN and to see whether it follows the guidelines. In addition, we examined the changes in the use of long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs in patients with breast cancer over the past ten years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational real-world study. The data were obtained from the clinical research database of three hospitals affiliated with Taipei Medical University. Patients with breast cancer who initiated their first chemotherapy regimen between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were identified by the ICD codes and their use of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Whether and how G-CSF was prescribed during the study patients' first chemotherapy regimen was examined, and the annual change in the total number of short- and long-acting G-CSFs prescribed to the study patients from 2011 to 2020 was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,444 patients who were prescribed at least one of the examined 15 breast cancer chemotherapy drugs, 1,414 did not use any G-CSFs during their first chemotherapy regimen while 145 used G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis and 185 for treatment. Among the patients receiving high FN risk regimens, only 8.6% used G-CSF for primary prophylaxis. The average (± SD) number of days for short-acting G-CSF use was 2.3 (± 1.5) days with a median of 2 days. In addition, it was found that there was a significant reduction in long-acting G-CSF use (p = 0.03) whereas the changes in short-acting G-CSF use over time were not significant (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results show that G-CSFs are used for primary prophylaxis in a small percentage of patients with breast cancer and the duration of short-acting G-CSF use is relatively short. Considering the significant clinical and economic impact of FN, it is hoped that the prescription patterns of G-CSFs observed can provide an important reference for future clinical practice and reimbursement policy.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany

PURPOSE

We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60).

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Difference of compliance rates for the recommendations in Japanese Guideline on Febrile Neutropenia according to respondents’ attributes: the second report on a questionnaire survey among hematology-oncology physicians and surgeons

Purpose

The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) published a guideline (GL) on febrile neutropenia (FN) in 2017. This study aims to identify promoting factors and disincentives for complying with GL recommendations according to attributes of doctors providing chemotherapy.

Methods

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

Result

Seven hundred eighty-eight out of retrieved 801 responses were available for analysis. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the percentage of GL users was higher among women and Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology members. The overall compliance rate was higher among women, JSMO members, and board-certified medical oncologists. Internists emphasized the significance of collecting blood cultures at FN onset, and surgeons stressed the importance of G-CSF prophylaxis. Hematologists were less likely to adhere to recommendations on risk assessment of FN by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer score and administration of gammaglobulin products. However, those are acceptable due to the characteristics of their practice. Eight recommendations had no difference in compliance rates between users and non-users, some of whose statements were ambiguous and discretionary.

Conclusion

Women were more likely to use and adhere to GL. The recommendations should be developed considering the characteristics of specialty and subspecialty and avoiding ambiguity and discretionary statements.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-06834-9.

Immunoglobulin substitution in patients with secondary antibody deficiency in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma: a representative analysis of guideline adherence and infections

INTRODUCTION

In secondary immunodeficiency, immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) is recommended by guidelines (GL) for patients with IgG level < 4 g/l and more than 3 infections or a severe infection. IgRT may be appropriate if IgG level < 4 g/l and/or 1-3 less severe infections (≤ grade 2).

METHODS

This was a retrospective sample analysis representative for practices and hospitals in Germany. The treatments and infection data were collected from patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM). GL adherence (GLAD) was analyzed.

RESULTS

Data from 1086 patients (CLL 490, MM 596) were collected from 86 centers. Of all patients, 34.8% developed IgG deficiency during therapy (CLL 35.5%; MM 34.2%). IgRT was given in 23.5% of CLL and 14.4% of MM patients. GLAD in hypogammaglobulinemia and indication to IgRT was 23.3% of 86 CLL and 22.1% of 77 MM patients. Without GLAD, the hazard ratio (HR) for any infection was 4.49 (95% CI 3.72-5.42; p < 0.001) and for severe infections (grade ≥ 3) 10.64 (95% CI 7.54-15.00; p < 0.001). Significant independent risk factors for infections were a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, IgG deficiency, and 3^rd + line treatment, as well as therapy with BTK inhibitors or chemotherapy in CLL. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly lower risk of severe infections after start of IgRT with a HR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.77; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline adherence correlated with fewer and less severe infections but was low in patients with indication to IgRT. Risk factors for infection can be identified. Risk of severe infections was significantly lower in patients with IgRT.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2–21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10–14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

Efficacy and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy in a Real-World Setting: Results of an Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Non-Interventional European Studies

BACKGROUND/AIM

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common and serious complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Data from two European non-interventional studies (NIS NADIR and NIS LEOS) investigating lipegfilgrastim for primary and secondary prophylaxis were pooled. Outcomes included the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), use of anti-infectives and antimycotics, and adverse events and their relationship to lipegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

The safety population included 361 patients with lung cancer (median age, 66 years [range, 36-88]), of whom 322 had received 2 or more consecutive cycles of lipegfilgrastim (efficacy population [primary prophylaxis, 75.5%; secondary prophylaxis, 16.5%]). Almost 40% of the patients were considered to have a high risk (>20%) of FN, and around 60% had an intermediate risk (10-20%). For all cycles, FN was reported in 3 patients (0.9%), neutropenia in 14 (4.3%), and grade 4 neutropenia in 9 (2.8%). Anti-infectives were used in 27 patients (8.4%) and antimycotics in 6 (1.9%). The incidence rates were lower for the patients' first cycle (FN, 0.4%; neutropenia, 0.8%; grade 4 neutropenia, 0.8%; anti-infectives, 0.6%; antimycotics, 0.6%). Adverse drug reactions considered lipegfilgrastim related were reported in 35 patients (9.7%), and serious adverse drug reactions in 10 (2.8%). None of the fatal events reported in 28 patients (7.8%) were lipegfilgrastim related.

CONCLUSION

Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety to that reported in published pivotal trials.

Risk Factors for Febrile Neutropenia Induced by Docetaxel Chemotherapy in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

We retrospectively obtained data of patient background and pretreatment characteristics from medical records and identified the predictive factors of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel alone or in combination with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacizumab. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were 20 years or older, diagnosed with NSCLC, and received docetaxel monotherapy alone or in combination with bevacizumab at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, between July 1, 2011, and March 31, 2018. Eighty-one patients with recurrent or advanced NSCLC were included. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis with backward selection revealed that lower baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) scores of 1 and 2 (odds ratio (OR), 5.098; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.045-24.879, p = 0.021) and baseline platelet count below 18.8 × 10⁴/µL (OR, 3.861; 95% CI, 1.211-12.311, p = 0.022) were significant factors influencing the FN occurrence rate. Our results demonstrated that ECOG-PS 1-2 and lower baseline platelet count were significant risk factors of FN in patients with NSCLC receiving docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Moreover, the combination of anti-VEGF antibodies and docetaxel might be associated with increased FN frequency. Despite the limitations of this study including its retrospective design, single-center site, and small sample size, baseline ECOG-PS score and platelet count may be regarded as important indices to identify patients for prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment before docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: 2019 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

Neutropenia is the most frequent side effect of commercially available myelosuppressive drugs and its most significant complication is febrile neutropenia. It is associated with increased hospital admissions and higher probability of death. Prophylaxis with the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can prevent neutropenia caused by anticancer drugs. The correct administration of these drugs and the management of febrile neutropenia are extremely important in the treatment of patients with cancer.

Hematopoietic Growth Factors in the Management of Anemia and Febrile Neutropenia

Chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) in cancer patients correlates with poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Currently recommended causal therapies are erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetins), iron substitution, or a combination of both. Guidelines recommend considering red blood cell (RBC) transfusions for symptomatic anemia at a hemoglobin (Hb) level of <8 g/dl. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is recommended if the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) following from the chosen chemotherapy protocol is ≥20%. If a chemotherapy is planned that induces a moderate FN risk (10-20%), the individual overall FN risk should be assessed prior to each chemotherapy cycle, taking into account patient- or tumor-related risk factors. G-CSF is required when risk factors such as age ≥ 65 years, advanced disease or relevant comorbidity, or previous neutropenia complications are present. Neutropenia that required a shift in chemotherapy is also an indication for G-CSF prophylaxis in subsequent cycles, in order to maintain the planned dose intensity. The use of G-CSF improves patient survival and reduces the rate of neutropenia complications.

Guideline adherence in bone-targeted treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases in Germany

Purpose

To assess adherence to the current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guideline on bone health in cancer patients and the German guidelines for lung, breast, and prostate cancer among German oncologists in hospitals and office-based physicians and to identify predictors of guideline compliance to assess the needs for dedicated training.

Methods

This was a retrospective sample analysis representing hospitals and office-based physicians in Germany in 2016. Records from lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients who had received a diagnosis of bone metastasis between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, were included. Oncologists at participating centers answered a self-assessment survey on aspects related to their professional life, including guideline adherence and years of clinical experience in medical oncology. Guideline adherence rates were assessed from patient records. Treatment variables and survey data were used to identify predictors of guideline compliance in a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.

Results

Disregarding recommendations for supplementation of calcium and vitamin D, guideline adherence among physicians treating lung, breast, or prostate cancer patients was 62%, 92%, and 83%, respectively. Compliance was 15%, 42%, and 40% if recommendations for dietary supplements were taken into account. Identified predictors of guideline compliance included treatment setting, medical specialty, years of professional experience, and frequency of quality circle attendance.

Conclusions

Compliance with the ESMO and the German guidelines in cancer patients varies between medical specialties. In particular, patients with lung cancer and bone metastases often do not receive the recommended osteoprotective treatment and required supplementation. Discrepancies between guideline recommendations and common practice should be addressed with dedicated training.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-019-05018-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.