Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.

RESULTS

We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Exploring the burden of short-term CHOP chemotherapy adverse events in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease: a comprehensive literature review in lymphoma patients

Purpose

Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) is a treatment for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) following solid organ transplant (SOT) after failing rituximab, an aggressive and potentially fatal lymphoma. This study explores the humanistic and economic burden of CHOP-associated adverse events (AEs) in PTLD patients. Since PTLD is rare, searches included lymphoproliferative disease with lymphoma patients.

Design

This comprehensive literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, pre-specifying the search strategy and criteria. CHOP-associated short-term AEs with an incidence of >4% were sourced from published literature and cancer websites to inform the search strategy. PubMed and EMBASE searches were used to identify humanistic and economic burden studies.

Results

PubMed and EMBASE searches identified 3946 citations with 27 lymphoma studies included. Studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Febrile neutropenia (FN) was the AE most encountered, followed by chemotherapy-induced (CI) anemia (A), infection, CI-nausea and vomiting, thrombocytopenia, and CI-peripheral neuropathy (PN). FN and infections were associated with significant disutility, increased hospitalization, and extended length of stay (LOS). Infections and CIPN significantly impacted the utility of patients and CIA-related fatigue showed reductions in quality of life (QoL). Many patients continue to have QoL deficits continued even after AEs were treated. Management costs varied greatly, ranging from nominal (CIPN) to over $100,000 in the USA for infections, EUR 10,290 in Europe for infections, or CAN$1012 in Canada for FN. Cost of outpatient care varied but had a lower economic impact compared to hospitalizations.

Conclusions

Short-term AEs from CHOP in the lymphoma population were associated with substantial humanistic and economic burden.

Use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors in older patients: a review of recently published data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents the analysis of recently published studies about the benefit from granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) in older cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last years, no major study aiming to confirm the clinical benefit of G-CSF prophylaxis in older patients treated with chemotherapy has been published. Nonetheless, all the data made recently available confirm that age, especially if other comorbid conditions are present as well, is a major risk factor for febrile neutropenia occurrence and that G-CSF prophylaxis can reduce significantly that risk.

SUMMARY

New modalities of administering G-CSF prophylaxis might be considered in older people in the future. Among these approaches, the 'same day' administration of prophylaxis and chemotherapy and the development of less-expensive approaches for G-CSF prophylaxis, such as the use of biosimilars are studied.

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.

Cost burden of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Treatment pathways for DLBCL are diverse and integrate established and novel therapies.Areas covered: We review the cost burden of DLBCL and the cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management including precision and cellular medicine. We utilized Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords to search the National Library of Medicine online MEDLINE database (PubMed) for articles related to cost, cost burden, and cost-of-illness of DLBCL and cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management strategies published in English as of June 2019.Expert commentary: Available and developing DLBCL therapies offer improved outcomes and often curative treatment at considerable financial expense, and the total cost burden for DLBCL management is substantial for patients and the healthcare system. In the era of personalized medicine, CAR T cells and targeted therapies provide exciting avenues for current and future DLBCL care and can further increase treatment cost. Determinations of cost and cost-effectiveness in DLBCL treatment pathways should continue to guide care providers and systems in identifying cost reduction strategies to provide appropriate therapies to the greatest number of patients in treating DLBCL.

The evolution of value with filgrastim in oncology

The recombinant G-CSF filgrastim was first approved in 1991, and its value has been evolving ever since. Initial health technology assessments suggested low value due to high drug cost and no evidence for significant gain in overall survival. However, more recent meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trial data show falling costs due to biosimilar competition and absolute overall survival gains of 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1-4.2%) from filgrastim support of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The launch of biosimilar alternatives merits a re-evaluation of decisions by health technology assessments and explains the first inclusion of filgrastim in the WHO Essential Drug List for cancer >20 years after its original approval in 1991, thus demonstrating the power of biosimilar medicines in transforming healthcare.

Trial Watch: Immunostimulation with recombinant cytokines for cancer therapy

Cytokines regulate virtually aspects of innate and adaptive immunity, including the initiation, execution and extinction of tumor-targeting immune responses. Over the past three decades, the possibility of using recombinant cytokines as a means to elicit or boost clinically relevant anticancer immune responses has attracted considerable attention. However, only three cytokines have been approved so far by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, namely, recombinant interleukin (IL)-2 and two variants of recombinant interferon alpha 2 (IFN-α2a and IFN-α2b). Moreover, the use of these cytokines in the clinics is steadily decreasing, mostly as a consequence of: (1) the elevated pleiotropism of IL-2, IFN-α2a and IFN-α2b, resulting in multiple unwarranted effects; and (2) the development of highly effective immunostimulatory therapeutics, such as immune checkpoint blockers. Despite this and other obstacles, research in the field continues as alternative cytokines with restricted effects on specific cell populations are being evaluated. Here, we summarize research preclinical and clinical developments on the use of recombinant cytokines for immunostimulation in cancer patients.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lipegfilgrastim Compared to Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients with Stage II-IV Breast Cancer

Background: Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex®) has demonstrated to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia (SN) in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Compared to pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim also demonstrated statistically significant lower time to ANC recovery in cycles 1-3, lower incidence of SN in cycle 2 and lower depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir in cycles 2 and 3. The aim of this study was to quantify the cost utility of lipegfilgrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in stage II-IV breast cancer patients, taking the perspective of the Belgian payer over a lifetime horizon. Methods: Two Markov models were developed to track on- and post-chemotherapy related complications, including SN, febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy dose delay, chemotherapy relative dose intensity of less than 85%, infection, death rates, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on costs (2015 value) and effects were obtained from literature, national references, and complemented by a survey of clinical experts using a modified Delphi method. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. Outcomes measures included costs, QALYs and life-years (LY). Results: At current equivalent price of €1,169, treatment with lipegfilgrastim was associated with overall costs of €9,845 vs. €10,208 for pegfilgrastim and overall QALYs of 13.977 vs. 13.925 for pegfilgrastim. Life expectancy was increased by 21 days (or 0.058 LY gained). The difference in costs stem from avoided infection, SN and FN cases in the lipegfilgrastim compared to the pegfilgrastim group. Similarly, the difference in QALYs was explained by the difference in the number of patients in the chemotherapy/G-CSF Markov state followed by infection and FN between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The probability of lipegfilgrastim to be cost-effective compared to pegfilgrastim was 68, 79, and 83% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) of €10,000, €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a WTP threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, lipegfilgrastim was cost-effective up to €1,500 across all age bands and cancer stages, compared to the current price. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim is a cost-effective use of health care resources in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

Patterns of growth factor usage and febrile neutropenia among older patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with CHOP or R-CHOP: the Intergroup experience (CALGB 9793; ECOG-SWOG 4494)

Patterns of myeloid growth factor (GF) usage and febrile neutropenia (FN) were examined in patients >60 years of age with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) enrolled on CALGB 9793/ECOG-SWOG 4494, receiving initial therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) or rituximab + CHOP (R-CHOP). Myeloid GFs were administered to 256/520 (49%) patients. Indications for use were: prevent dose reduction/dose delay (81%, 207/256); treat FN or non-febrile neutropenia (NFN) (19%, 48/256). One or more FN episodes occurred in 41% (212/520) of patients, with FN most often in cycle 1 (38% of episodes). In multivariate analysis, risk factors for FN included age >65 years (odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% CI: [1.4, 4.9]) and anemia (hemoglobin <12 g/dl) (OR =2.2, 95% confidence intervals (CI): [1.4, 3.5]. Myeloid GF use was common in this older DLBCL population receiving CHOP-based therapy, as was FN, especially during cycle one. Risk factors predictive for FN should be used prospectively to identify patients for whom myeloid GFs are best utilized.

Identifying existing Choosing Wisely recommendations of high relevance and importance to hematology

Choosing Wisely (CW) is a medical stewardship initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with professional medical societies in the United States. In an effort to learn from and leverage the work of others, the American Society of Hematology CW Task Force developed a method to identify and prioritize CW recommendations from other medical societies of high relevance and importance to patients with blood disorders and their physicians. All 380 CW recommendations were reviewed and assessed for relevance and importance. Relevance was assessed using the MORE(TM) relevance scale. Importance was assessed with regard to six guiding principles: harm avoidance, evidence, aggregate cost, relevance, frequency and impact. Harm avoidance was considered the most important principle. Ten highly relevant and important recommendations were identified from a variety of professional societies. Recommendations focused on decreasing unnecessary imaging, blood work, treatments and transfusions, as well as on increasing collaboration across disciplines and considering value when recommending treatments. Many CW recommendations have relevance beyond the society of origin. The methods developed by the ASH CW Task Force could be easily adapted by other Societies to identify additional CW recommendations of relevance and importance to their fields. Am. J. Hematol. 91:787-792, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented.

CONCLUSION

In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Trial Watch-Immunostimulation with cytokines in cancer therapy

During the past decade, great efforts have been dedicated to the development of clinically relevant interventions that would trigger potent (and hence potentially curative) anticancer immune responses. Indeed, developing neoplasms normally establish local and systemic immunosuppressive networks that inhibit tumor-targeting immune effector cells, be them natural or elicited by (immuno)therapy. One possible approach to boost anticancer immunity consists in the (generally systemic) administration of recombinant immunostimulatory cytokines. In a limited number of oncological indications, immunostimulatory cytokines mediate clinical activity as standalone immunotherapeutic interventions. Most often, however, immunostimulatory cytokines are employed as immunological adjuvants, i.e., to unleash the immunogenic potential of other immunotherapeutic agents, like tumor-targeting vaccines and checkpoint blockers. Here, we discuss recent preclinical and clinical advances in the use of some cytokines as immunostimulatory agents in oncological indications.

Macrophages support splenic erythropoiesis in 4T1 tumor-bearing mice

Anemia is a common complication of cancer; a role of spleen in tumor-stress erythropoiesis has been suggested. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in the splenic erythropoiesis following tumor maintenance remain poorly understood. Here we show that tumor development blocks medullar erythropoiesis by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and then causes anemia in murine 4T1 breast tumor-bearing mice. Meanwhile, tumor-stress promotes splenic erythropoiesis. Splenectomy worsened tumor-induced anemia, and reduced tumor volume and tumor weight, indicating the essential role of spleen in tumor-stress erythropoiesis and tumor growth. Tumor progression of these mice led to increased amounts of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) in spleen. The in vivo role of macrophages in splenic erythropoiesis under tumor-stress conditions was investigated. Macrophage depletion by injecting liposomal clodronate decreased the expression of BMP4, inhibited splenic erythropoiesis, aggravated the tumor-induced anemia and suppressed tumor growth. Our results provide insight that macrophages and BMP4 are positive regulators of splenic erythropoiesis in tumor pathological situations. These findings reveal that during the tumor-stress period, the microenvironment of the spleen is undergoing changes, which contributes to adopt a stress erythropoietic fate and supports the expansion and differentiation of stress erythroid progenitors, thereby replenishing red blood cells and promoting tumor growth.

Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies

During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into "passive" and "active" based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Trial watch: Immunostimulatory cytokines in cancer therapy

Tumor-targeting immune responses provide a significant contribution to (when they do not entirely account for) the clinical activity of diverse antineoplastic regimens, encompassing not only a large panel of immunotherapeutic strategies but also conventional cytotoxic molecules, targeted anticancer agents and irradiation. In line with this notion, several approaches have been devised to elicit novel or boost existing anticancer immune responses, including the administration of immunomodulatory cytokines. Such a relatively unspecific intervention suffices to mediate clinical effects in (at least a subset of) patients bearing particularly immunogenic tumors, like melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. More often, however, immunostimulatory cytokines are administered to boost the immunogenic potential of other agents, including (but not limited to) immune checkpoint-blocking antibodies, anticancer vaccines, oncolytic viruses and immunogenic chemotherapeutics. Here, we summarize the latest advances in the clinical development of recombinant cytokines as an immunomodulatory intervention for cancer therapy.

Is primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) indicated in the treatment of lymphoma?

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication of cancer therapy. It can contribute to delays in treatment, increased rates of hospitalization, and severe infections. FN may also hinder completion of intended chemotherapy. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) lower the rates of FN, infections, and hospitalization. Multiple national and international guidelines advocate the use of G-CSF in primary prophylaxis if the overall risk of FN is >20% (accounting for both patient and treatment-related risks). Lymphoma specific guidelines recommend G-CSF use in similar fashion. However, based on our updated review of published literature, we note that primary prophylaxis (PP) with G-CSF fails to improve overall survival as well as infection-related mortality. Moreover, lymphoma specific cost-effectiveness analyses on the use of PP have shed further doubt on the optimal use of this myeloid growth factor. In this general review, we will discuss whether PP with GCSF has any role in the management of adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Trial Watch: Immunostimulatory cytokines

During the past two decades, the notion that cancer would merely constitute a cell-intrinsic disease has gradually been complemented by a model postulating that the immune system plays a relevant role during all stages of oncogenesis and tumor progression. Along with this conceptual shift, several strategies have been devised to stimulate tumor-specific immune responses, including relatively unselective approaches such as the systemic administration of adjuvants or immunomodulatory cytokines. One year ago, in the July issue of OncoImmunology, we described the main biological features of this large group of proteins and discussed the progress of ongoing clinical studies evaluating their safety and therapeutic potential in cancer patients. Here, we summarize the latest developments in this area of clinical research, focusing on high impact studies that have been published during the last 13 mo and clinical trials launched in the same period to investigate which cytokines can be employed as safe and efficient immunostimulatory interventions against cancer.

Reducing the cost of cancer care: how to bend the curve downward

Health care and cancer care costs are rising unsustainably such that insurance costs have doubled in 10 years. Oncologists find themselves both victims of high costs and the cause of high-cost care by what we do and what we do not do. We previously outlined five ways that oncologists could personally bend the cost curve downward and five societal attitudes that would require change to lower costs. Here, we present some practical ways to reduce costs while maintaining or improving quality, including: 1) evidence-based surveillance after curative therapy; 2) reduced use of white cell stimulating factors (filgrastim and pegfilgrastim); 3) better integration of palliative care into usual oncology care; and 4) use of evidence-based, cost-conscious clinical pathways that allow appropriate care and lead to equal or better outcomes at one-third lower cost.