Cost-minimization analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after induction chemotherapy in children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Randomized study of granulocyte colony stimulating factor for childhood B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the Japanese pediatric leukemia/lymphoma study group B-NHL03 study

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the management of childhood B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Patients with advanced-stage mature B-NHL were randomized to receive prophylactic G-CSF (G-CSF+) or not receive G-CSF (G-CSF-) based on protocols of the B-NHL03 study. The G-CSF group received 5 μg/kg/d Lenograstim from day 2 after each course of six chemotherapy courses. Fifty-eight patients were assessable, 29 G-CSF + and 29 G-CSF-. G-CSF + patients showed a positive impact on the meantime to neutrophil recovery and hospital stay. On the other hand, they had no impact in the incidences of febrile neutropenia, serious infections, stomatitis and total cost. Our study showed that administration of prophylactic G-CSF through all six chemotherapy courses for childhood B-NHL showed no clinical and economic benefits for the management of childhood B-NHL treatment.

Resultados del protocolo SHOP LNHB98 (LMB89) en pacientes de edad pediátrica afectados de linfoma no hodgkiniano de células B

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

After the good results obtained by the Société Française d'Oncologie Pédiatrique (SFOP) regarding the pediatric B-type non-Hodgkin's (Burkitt and large B-cell) lymphoma and L3 leukemia, the Sociedad Española de Hematología y Oncología Pediátricas (SHOP) decided to use the same treatment protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Pediatric patients diagnosed with B-type non-Hodgkin's lymphoma without a previous history of malignant diseases were eligible for this study. They were classified in 3 groups of risk: group A (resected stage I and abdominal stage II), group B (not eligible for groups A or C), and group C (with central nervous system involvement and L3 leukemia). All received treatment according to the SFOP's LMB89 protocol.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were considered in this multicenter, prospective and non-randomized trial (1997-2005). The global and event-free survival (EFS) were found to be of 88% (0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.93) and 85% (0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90), respectively. The EFS was 100% for the group A (n = 16), 86% (0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) for the group B (n = 113), and 68% (0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for the group C (n = 24).

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm the good efficiency of the LMB89 protocol for treating B-cell lymphoma and L3 leukemia, despite having diminished the treatment intensity in the less risk groups. The worst prognostic factor was found to be a central nervous system involvement, whereas being younger than 10 years was confirmed to be a favorable prognostic factor. In addition, no differences were evidenced between Burkitt and large B-cell lymphoma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Low-Dose Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Overcomes Neutropenia in the Treatment of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma with Higher Cost-Effectiveness

To facilitate more economical medical care, we carried out a prospective study of whether a THP-COP regimen (cyclophosphamide, pirarubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) with low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) would effectively treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). From April 2003 through March 2004, we enrolled 19 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed NHL treated at our hospital. The patients were divided into young and elderly groups. Each patient underwent chemotherapy with 8 courses of a THP-COP regimen with a 50-microg dose of lenograstim. Age- and sex-matched historical control patients (n = 141) received NHL diagnoses between 1998 and 2003. Each patient in the control group underwent the same chemotherapy and received a 100-microg dose of lenograstim. The mean (+/-SD) total amounts of G-CSF per cycle of chemotherapy were 332 +/- 103 microg (young patients) and 345 +/- 128 microg (elderly patients) in the low-dose group and 594 +/- 439 microg (young) and 730 +/- 551 microg (elderly) in the control group. The duration of fever in 1 cycle of chemotherapy was 0.3 +/- 1.0 days (young) and 0.1 +/- 0.8 days (elderly) in the low-dose group and 0.5 +/- 1.3 days (young) and 0.8 +/- 2.0 days (elderly) in the control group. A THP-COP regimen with low-dose G-CSF could be administered to NHL patients with safety. Administration of a 50-microg dose of lenograstim is sufficient and recommended for the treatment of NHL.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Decrease Febrile Neutropenia After Chemotherapy in Children With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

To determine whether prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) used in children with cancer reduce the rate of febrile neutropenia, hospitalization duration, documented infection rate, parenteral antibiotic duration, amphotericin B use, or infection-related mortality.

Methods

We included studies in this meta-analysis if their populations consisted of children, if there was randomization between CSFs and placebo or no therapy, if CSFs were administered prophylactically (before neutropenia or febrile neutropenia), and if chemotherapy treatments preceding CSFs and placebo or no therapy were identical. From 971 reviewed study articles, 16 were included.

Results

The mean rate of febrile neutropenia in the control arms was 57% (range, 39% to 100%). Using a random effects model, CSFs were associated with a reduction in febrile neutropenia, with a rate ratio of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P = .01), and a decrease in hospitalization length, with a weighted mean difference of −1.9 days (95% CI, −2.7 to −1.1 days; P < .00001). CSF use was also associated with reduction in documented infections (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.97; P = .02) and reduction in amphotericin B use (rate ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.87; P = .02). There was no difference in duration of parenteral antibiotic therapy (weighted mean difference, −4.3; 95% CI, −10.6 to 2.0 days; P = .2) or infection-related mortality (rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.34 to 3.06; P = .97).

Conclusion

CSFs were associated with a 20% reduction in febrile neutropenia and shorter duration of hospitalization; however, CSFs did not reduce infection-related mortality.

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

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

Economic evaluation of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in very high-risk childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia

PURPOSE

In a previous randomized study, the authors reported that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increased the chemotherapy dose-intensity delivered during the consolidation therapy of high-risk childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The aim of the current study was to perform an economic evaluation in the same cohort.

METHODS

In this open-label multicenter randomized trial, prophylactic G-CSF was administered after consolidation therapy courses. Economic data were retrospectively quantified for each patient: hospital stays, drugs, and blood products.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children were enrolled in the very high-risk branch of the FRALLE 93 protocol. Chemotherapy dose-intensity was significantly increased (105 +/- 5% in the G-CSF group vs. 91 +/- 4% in the non-G-CSF group, P < 0.001). The mean total costs per child were not statistically different: 32,309 dollars in the G-CSF group versus 31,569 dollars in the non-G-CSF group. Further analysis per child and per course (R3 or COPADM) demonstrated that the mean cost of hospitalization and the mean cost of intravenous antibiotics were significantly decreased in the G-CSF group after R3 courses (3,857 dollars vs. 4,993.80 dollars, P < 0.001; 171.40 dollars vs. 306.20 dollars, P = 0.029, respectively), but the cost of platelet transfusion was significantly increased (P = 0.03). Conversely, post-COPADM costs were similar. Finally, mean costs per course in the two randomized groups were not significantly different: 5,848.80 dollars versus 6,181 dollars and 7,388.10 dollars versus 6,475.70 dollars for R3 and COPADM, respectively. The 3-year probability of event-free survival between the two groups was not different.

CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF can increase chemotherapy dose-intensity in very high-risk ALL without raising costs, but event-free survival was not improved. The cost benefit of prophylactic treatment by G-CSF relies on the chemotherapeutic regimen given prior to G-CSF administration.

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

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

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

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

Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients receiving dose-intensive cancer chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of the recombinant colony-stimulating factors in reducing the severity and duration of neutropenia and the risk of infection associated with dose-intensive cancer chemotherapy. We performed a meta-analysis to define better the magnitude of this effect and to assess the generalizability of the results among different diseases and types of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used electronic databases and citation lists to identify controlled clinical trials of the prophylactic efficacy of the colony-stimulating factors on neutropenic complications. We selected randomized trials of the use of recombinant colony-stimulating factors before the onset of fever or neutropenia following systemic chemotherapy for solid tumors or malignant lymphomas.

RESULTS

We identified eight controlled trials (n = 1144 patients) of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors, including five trials of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors) and three studies of lenograstim (glycosylated granulocyte recombinant colony-stimulating factors). Five trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled; three included untreated controls. Use of recombinant colony-stimulating factors was associated with a reduced risk of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29 to 0.49), documented infection (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.73), and infection-related mortality (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.22), but a greater risk of bone pain (OR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.6 to 4.8).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, recombinant colony-stimulating factors were effective in reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia and documented infection associated with several malignancies and dose-intensive treatment regimens.

A randomised study of prophylactic G-CSF following MRC UKALL XI intensification regimen in childhood ALL and T-NHL

BACKGROUND

Despite the current widespread use of prophylactic G-CSF in children with solid tumours and leukaemia, its effectiveness has not been clearly demonstrated. This randomised study evaluates the role of G-CSF given after a 5-day intensification block in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).

PROCEDURE

Forty-six children with ALL or T-Cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) treated on MRC ALL 97, UKALL XI or UKCCSG 9504 NHL protocols were randomised to receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following either the first or the second block of intensive chemotherapy in a cross-over study to determine if the prophylactic administration of G-CSF could reduce the rate of readmission to hospital for management of febrile neutropenia.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the rate of hospital admission in the group receiving prophylaxis, with 34 of 46 being admitted, compared to 42 of 46 patients in the control arm (74 vs. 91%; P=0.0386). There were no differences found in duration of hospital admission, haematological toxicity, neutrophil recovery or duration of supportive care between the two groups. There was no demonstrable cost benefit derived from the prophylactic administration of G-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the prophylactic administration of G-CSF following intensification chemotherapy for childhood ALL and T-NHL produces a significant reduction in the rate of readmission to hospital for the management of febrile neutropenia.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

Lenograstim: an update of its pharmacological properties and use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and related clinical settings

Lenograstim is the glycosylated recombinant form of human granulocyte colony stimulating factor. The drug is used to reduce the risk of life-threatening infection in patients with neutropenia, particularly after cytotoxic chemotherapy. Lenograstim accelerates neutrophil recovery significantly after chemotherapy, with beneficial effects on clinical end-points such as incidence of laboratory-confirmed infection and length of hospital stay. Chemotherapy dose intensity has also been increased in patients receiving lenograstim, notably those with breast or small cell lung cancer, although improvements in tumour response and survival have not been demonstrated. Lenograstim also assists neutrophil recovery in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation, and stimulates the production of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) for autologous transfusion after aggressive chemotherapy. Lenograstim also mobilises CD34+ cells more efficiently in unit dose terms than filgrastim and has been used successfully to mobilise PBSCs from healthy donors for allogeneic transplantation. Randomised trials have shown increases in rates of disease remission after lenograstim therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, with no evidence of stimulation of malignant blasts. The drug has also shown potential in the mobilisation of nonmalignant PBSCs for autotransplantation in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Other studies show efficacy of lenograstim in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, aplastic anaemia, in children with severe chronic neutropenia and in the reversal of neutropenia related to antiviral therapy in patients with AIDS, although data are not extensive. Cost analyses of lenograstim have been carried out from a hospital perspective, although results have been inconclusive. Cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit data are lacking at present. Lenograstim is well tolerated, with bone pain and injection site reactions being reported most frequently in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenograstim has been confirmed as a valuable adjunct to minimise the haematological toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with malignant disease. The drug also enhances neutrophil recovery in patients undergoing stem cell rescue, and assists PBSC mobilisation. Data indicate clinical benefit with lenograstim in myeloid disorders, with no evidence of malignant blast cell proliferation. Further studies are required to assess more fully the pharmacoeconomic implications of the use of lenograstim and other recombinant growth factors, to provide more data on the efficacy of the drug in the management of disease-related neutropenia, and to clarify fully its position relative to filgrastim.

Prospective and randomized comparison of early versus delayed prophylactic administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

The prophylactic use of hematopoietic growth factors has been shown to reduce the duration of neutropenia and related complications encountered after anticancer chemotherapy. However, the optimal timing for initiation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has not been established.

PROCEDURE

We evaluated the clinical parameters of the early versus delayed start (+1 day vs. +5 days postchemotherapy) of filgrastim (G-CSF; 5 micrograms/kg) after 36 courses of anticancer chemotherapy in 18 children with cancer in randomized fashion. Each child received two identical anticancer chemotherapeutic courses followed by one early (group 1) and one delayed (group 2) administration of G-CSF. Filgrastim was administered until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) exceeded 1.0 x 10(9)/l.

RESULTS

The mean duration of G-CSF therapy was 8.6 (range, 5-14) days in group 1 and 5.4 (range, 3-10) days in group 2 (P = 0.001). The mean duration of neutropenia (ANC < 1.0 x 10(9)/l) did not differ between the study groups (7.8 vs. 8.2 days). Seven infection episodes occurred in group 1 and eight in group 2, respectively. The mean number of hospital days on broad-spectrum antibiotics was 2.3 (range, 0-8) in group 1 and 3.3 (range, 0-11) in group 2 (ns).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the delayed start of filgrastim reduced the costs of this treatment, but was not followed by more prolonged neutropenia or febrile neutropenias.

Update of the economic analyses of the use of the colony-stimulating factors

The colony-stimulating factors have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent febrile neutropenia and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy with or without stem cell support. Several studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy of the colony-stimulating factors used prophylactically in both solid tumors and the hematologic malignancies. The cost of these agents, along with their large scale clinical use, has prompted a number of economic investigations. Economic analyses based on measures of resource utilization derived from randomized clinical trials have provided febrile neutropenia risk threshold estimates for the cost saving use of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor. A number of important studies concerning the clinical and economic impact of these agents have been reported over the past year. These include a revised cost minimization study based on improved febrile neutropenia cost information and a cost-effectiveness analysis in the adjuvant breast cancer setting based on a clinical prediction model to select patients at high risk for neutropenic complications. Continuing clinical and economic evaluation along with updating of clinical practice guidelines is needed due to rapid technologic and clinical advances in this area.

Making the transition from hospital to home: caring for the newly diagnosed child with cancer

Current trends in the management of health care show increasing pressure for earlier discharge of children, and their families may or may not be ready to continue the child's care at home. This article provides information that helps the home care provider bridge the transition from hospital care to home care. Care frequently is coordinated by a hospital-based clinical nurse specialist who provides psychosocial support, reinforces teaching, minimizes risks for complications, and performs home infusion therapy, such as antibiotics, chemotherapy, analgesics, total parenteral nutrition, and biologic therapy.