[Modalities of management of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the oncology emergency unit of Gustave-Roussy and their related costs]

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study

PURPOSE

This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations.

METHODS

In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

Ambulatory management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in adult oncological patients. Systematic review

PURPOSE

Recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended ambulatory management of febrile neutropenia in patients with low risk of complications. Although some centers have begun developing management protocols for these patients, there appears to be a certain reluctance to implement them in clinical practice. Our aim is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this strategy according to available evidence and to propose new lines of research.

METHODS

Systematic review using a triple aim approach (efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life), drawing from literature in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The review includes studies that assess ambulatory management for efficacy, cost-efficiency, and quality of life.

RESULTS

The search yielded 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on current evidence, ambulatory management of febrile neutropenia is safe, more cost-effective than inpatient care, and capable of improving quality of life in oncological patients with this complication. Ambulatory care seems to be an effective alternative to hospitalization in these patients.