Attitudes of physicians toward assessing risk and using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy associated with an intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia

The Impact of Baseline Risk Factors on the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy with Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis: A Real-World Data Analysis

Background: There are sparse data addressing whether standard risk factors for febrile neutropenia (FN) are relevant in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and primary prophylaxis for FN, which would have implications for variables to consider during real-world comparative analyses of FN incidence. Objective: To assess the impact of baseline patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk on the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim identified January 1, 2017-May 31, 2018 from MarketScan® research databases. The outcomes were defined as incidence of FN in the first cycle and among all cycles of chemotherapy using three different definitions for FN. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations models were used to compare outcomes among patients with and without patient-specific risk factors and among those receiving regimens categorized as high-, intermediate-, or other-risk for FN (low-risk or undefinable by clinical practice guidelines). Results: A total of 4460 patients were identified. In the first cycle of therapy, patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were at up to 2 times higher risk for FN across all definitions than those receiving high-risk regimens (P<0.01). The odds ratio for main FN among patients with ≥4 versus 0 risk factors was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 169.4; P<0.01). Patients with ≥3 FN risk factors had significantly greater risks for FN across all cycles of treatment than those with no risk factors; this was true for all FN definitions. Discussion: The choice of FN definition significantly changed the impact of risk factors on the FN outcomes in our study, demonstrating the importance of evaluating all proxies for true FN events in a database study. This is particularly important during real-world study planning where potential missteps may lead to bias or confounding effects that render a study meaningless. Conclusions: In patients with BC receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk levels are determinants of FN risk. In real-world studies evaluating FN incidence, it is imperative to consider and control for these risk factors when conducting comparative analyses.

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

Background

Current guidelines (GL) recommend neutropenia prophylaxis with G-CSF after chemotherapy (CTX) for patients with high (≥ 20%), or, if additional risk factors are present, intermediate (≥ 10–20%) risk of febrile neutropenia. The first sample survey in 2012 (NP1) showed lack of GL adherence. The aim of this second sample survey was to evaluate if GL adherence and implementation have improved.

Methods

The sample size represented 1.0% of the incidences of lung and 1.1% of breast cancer in Germany in 2010. Data of patients with a febrile neutropenia (FN) risk ≥ 10% who had received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy between October 2014 and September 2015 was surveyed retrospectively.

Results

Data from 573 lung cancer (LC) and 801 breast cancer (BC) patients was collected from 109 hospitals and 83 oncology practices with 222 physicians participating. Compared with the NP1 survey, GL adherence increased in LC and FN high-risk (HR) chemotherapy from 15.4 to 47.8% (p < 0.001), and in FN intermediate-risk (IR) chemotherapy from 38.8 to 44.3% (p = 0.003). In BC and FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence was unchanged: 85.6% vs. 85.1% (p = 0.73) but increased in FN-IR from 49.3 to 57.8% (p < 0.001). In all IR CTX cycles, there are also no significant differences in GL adherence between the first (51.3%) and subsequent cycles (51.1%; p = 0.948). In LC patients treated in certified or comprehensive cancer centers, the GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 53.0% vs. 44.9% in other centers (p = 0.295); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 45.1% vs. 43.8% (p = 0.750). In BC with FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence in certified or comprehensive centers was 85.4% vs. 84.7% in other institutions (p = 0.869); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 60.2% vs. 55.0% (p = 0.139). GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy and in FN-IR chemotherapy differed between pulmonologists and hematologist-oncologists (FN-HR: 25.0% vs. 43.6%, p < 0.001; 38.1% vs. 48.6%, p < 0.001). Comparing gynecologists with hematologist-oncologists, GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 86.2% vs. 82.5%. In FN-IR chemotherapy, GL adherence by gynecologists and hematologist-oncologists was 58.6% and 55.6%, respectively (p = 0.288; p = 0.424). Classification and regression tree analysis split pulmonologists and other specialists, with the latter adhering more to GL (p < 0.001). Hematologist-oncologists and gynecologists with more than 2 years of professional training in medical cancer therapy adhered more closely to GL than others (68.7% vs. 46.2%, p < 0.001). Pulmonologists attending ≥ 2 national congresses annually adhered more to guidelines than other pulmonologists (44.8% vs. 24.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Adherence to G-CSF GL in Germany has increased but is still insufficient. Certified and comprehensive cancer centers show a higher rate of GL implementation. In GL adherence, there is still a disparity between cancer types and between oncology treatment specialists.

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.

[Granulocyte- colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use in clinical practice in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer: The Opaline Study]

OBJECTIVES

To describe the French routine use of G-CSF in patients treated for breast cancer as per the EORTC recommendations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter observational study conducted between February 2008 and September 2009 in 869 breast cancer patients treated by chemotherapy (CT) and for whom G-CSF treatment will be delivered in primary (PP) or secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 55 years. A total of 80.3% of CT was in neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting (NAS). PP was delivered in 78.9% of the NAS patients and 67.5% in metastatic situation. Of the 702 evaluable patients, incidences of severe (SN) and febrile neutropenias (FN) in patients who received PP were 9.3% and 4.2%, respectively. In patients who did not received G-CSF at first cycle, SN and FN were 12.4% and 7.3%, respectively. The use of PP was mainly driven by the type of CT for patients treated in the NAS and by patient or disease related risk factors in the locally advanced/metastatic setting.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that the use of G-CSF was in accordance with the 2010 updates of the EORTC recommendations. However, G-CSF appears more widely used in the routine practice.