Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients).

RESULTS

A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT04354701.

Supportive care in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cancer care has been profoundly impacted by the global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19), resulting in unprecedented challenges. Supportive care is an essential component of cancer treatment, seeking to prevent and manage chemotherapy complications such as febrile neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia/bleeding, thromboembolic events and nausea/vomiting, all of which are common causes of hospitalisation. These adverse events are an essential consideration under routine patient management, but particularly so during a pandemic, a setting in which clinicians aim to minimise patients' risk of infection and need for hospital visits. Professional medical oncology societies have been providing updated guidelines to support health care professionals with the management, treatment and supportive care needs of their patients with cancer under the threat of COVID-19. This paper aims to review the recommendations made by the most prominent medical oncology societies for devising and modifying supportive care strategies during the pandemic.

•

Cancer care has been profoundly impacted by the global pandemic of COVID-19, resulting in unprecedented challenges.

•

Oncology societies have updated guidelines for the supportive care needs of patients with cancer under the threat of COVID-19.

•

This paper reviews recommendations from prominent oncology societies for providing supportive care during the pandemic.

Clinical prediction rules for mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism and cancer to guide outpatient management: a meta-analysis

Essentials Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can stratify patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and cancer. A meta-analysis was done to assess prognostic accuracy in CPRs for mortality in these patients. Eight studies evaluating ten CPRs were included in this study. CPRs should continue to be used with other patient factors for mortality risk stratification.

SUMMARY

Background Cancer treatment is commonly complicated by pulmonary embolism (PE), which remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Some guidelines recommend the use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) to help clinicians identify patients at low risk of mortality and therefore guide care. Objective To determine and compare the accuracy of available CPRs for identifying cancer patients with PE at low risk of mortality. Methods A literature search of Medline and Scopus (January 2000 to August 2017) was performed. Studies deriving/validating ≥ 1 CPR for early post-PE all-cause mortality were included. A bivariate, random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates for each CPR. Traditional random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the weighted proportion of patients deemed at low risk of early mortality, mortality in low risk patients and odds ratios for death compared with higher-risk patients. Results Eight studies evaluating 10 CPRs were included. The highest sensitivities were observed with Hestia (98.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.6-99.9%) and the EPIPHANY index (97.4%, 95% CI = 93.2-99.0%); sensitivities of remaining rules ranged from 59.9 to 96.6%. Of the six CPRs with sensitivities ≥ 95%, none had specificities > 33%. Random-effects meta-analysis suggested that 6.6-51.6% of cancer patients with PE were at low risk of mortality, 0-14.3% of low-risk patients died and low-risk patients had a 43-94% lower odds of death compared with those at higher risk. Conclusions Because of the limited total body of evidence regarding CPRs, their results, in conjunction with other pertinent patient-specific clinical factors, should continue to be used in identifying appropriate management for PE in patients with cancer.

The impact of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy dose intensity and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is utilized to reduce neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. This study represents a systematic review and evidence summary of the impact of G-CSF support on chemotherapy dose intensity and overall mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support and reporting all-cause mortality with at least 2 years of follow-up were sought. Dual-blind data abstraction of disease, treatment, patient and outcome study results with conflict resolution by third party was carried out.

RESULTS

The search revealed 61 randomized comparisons of chemotherapy with or without initial G-CSF support. Death was reported in 4251 patients randomized to G-CSFs and in 5188 controls. Relative risk (RR) with G-CSF support for all-cause mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.96; P < 0.001). RR for mortality varied by intended chemotherapy dose and schedule: same dose and schedule (RR = 0.96; P = 0.060), dose dense (RR = 0.89; P < 0.001), dose escalation (RR = 0.92; P = 0.019) and drug substitution or addition (RR = 0.94; P = 0.003). Greater RR reduction was observed among studies with longer follow-up (P = 0.02), where treatment was for curative intent (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001), and where survival was the primary outcome (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause mortality is reduced in patients receiving chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support. The greatest impact was observed in RCTs in patients receiving dose-dense schedules.

Abstract P3-06-07: Ki67 as a Predictive Marker of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC): A Systematic Review and Evidence Summary

Background: Immunohistochemical (IHC) assessment of the proportion of cells staining for the KI67 nuclear antigen is being increasing utilized in the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). A comprehensive systematic review and evidence synthesis of biomarkers potentially predictive of response to systemic therapy was initiated as a part of an NCI-funded comparative effectiveness research program.

Methods: Studies of chemotherapy response prediction based on baseline IHC assessment of Ki67 in patients with ESBC receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy were identified. Response was specified as pathologic complete response (pCR) or clinical response (ClinR). Assay predictive performance for response was assessed on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and predictive odds ratio (POR±95%CLs) utilizing mixed effects models. Study results were fitted in an ROC analysis based on the method of DerSimonian and Laird. Publication bias was evaluated on the basis of funnel plot asymmetry assessed by Egger's regression intercept and Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation.

Results: Of 469 potentially eligible studies, dual blind full text review identified 42 eligible studies reporting 44 independent cohorts with 6,716 patients (21–979). While Ki67 cutpoints varied considerably, they were most commonly between 10%–30% (median 20%, range 1–50%). The analysis prsented here is limited to the 30 studies of ESBC patients (N = 3,343) receiving neoadjuvant therapy of which 14 reported fewer than 100 patients. The proportion of patients with elevated Ki67 across studies ranged from 0.20–0.92 (median = 0.54). Sensitivity and specificity for treatment response in patients with high vs. low baseline Ki67 was 0.65 [0.61, 0.68] and 0.52 [0.50, 0.54], respectively. Estimated response rates across studies in patients with high vs. low Ki67 were 31% [29%, 34%] and 19% [17%, 21%], respectively. The estimated POR for response across studies was 2.82 [2.14, 3.72; P &lt; .001].

Abstract P1-15-04: The relationship of relative dose intensity and supportive care to febrile neutropenia rates in patients with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy: a prospective cohort study of chemotherapy-associated toxicity

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) represents a major dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy resulting in considerable morbidity, mortality, and cost. Patients have the highest risk of the initial neutropenic event in cycle 1 when most patients receive full dose chemotherapy. This study evaluates time course of neutropenic events in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) and supportive care interventions that modify FN risk in ESBC patients treated in actual oncology practice.

Methods: A prospective cohort study of adult cancer patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting a chemotherapy regimen was conducted at 115 U.S. sites. Toxicities associated with chemotherapy were recorded in up to 4 cycles including severe neutropenia (SN), FN, and infection. Documented clinical interventions included reductions in chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), the use of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), and antibiotics.

Results: A total of 1202 ESBC patients starting chemotherapy were analyzed, of which 1154, 1099, and 896 reached the midcycle of cycles 2, 3, and 4, respectively. While the majority of neutropenic and infection events occurred in cycle 1, decreasing rates of FN and infection in later cycles correlated with increasing reductions in dose intensity and increased use of CSFs and antibiotics.

P5-20-03: Personalizing Supportive Care: A Clinical Prediction Model for Neutropenic Complications in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Receiving Intermediate Risk Chemotherapy

Background: Neutropenic complications including severe and febrile neutropenia (FN) represent major dose-limiting toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. A general risk model for neutropenic complications across major solid tumors has been developed and validated (Lyman et al. Cancer 2011). Current guidelines recommend consideration of primary prophylaxis with a colony-stimulating factor (CSF) in patients at &gt;20% risk of FN. The decision for primary CSF prophylaxis in patients on intermediate risk chemotherapy (10-20%) is based on physician assessment of individual patient risk factors for FN. This study assesses the ability of this general FN risk model to identify ESBC patients on intermediate risk chemotherapy who are at a personal high risk for developing a neutropenic complication.

Methods: A prospective cohort study accrued 4458 consenting patients starting a new chemotherapy regimen at 115 randomly selected community oncology practices throughout the United States from 2002–2006. The risk of severe or febrile neutropenia (SNFN) in cycle 1 and across 4 cycles was estimated [±95% CI] utilizing logistic regression analysis and adjusting for key clinical factors including among others: age, prior chemotherapy, abnormal hepatic or renal function, low pretreatment white blood count, immunosuppressive medications, CSF prophylaxis, and planned relative dose intensity as well as major chemotherapeutic agents. The cumulative risk of FN across 4 cycles was also estimated by the product limit method of Kaplan and Meier.

Results: Among 1224 patients with ESBC, 822 received intermediate risk chemotherapy based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Among these patients, cycle 1 SNFN occurred in 37%, at least one episode of FN over 4 cycles of chemotherapy in 17%, with 15% receiving primary CSF prophylaxis. The predicted risk of cycle 1 SNFN ranged from 1%-79%, with mean (median) risk of 33.8% (39.0%). Model performance was good with a c-statistic of 0.73 [0.69−0.76]. Based on this general FN risk model, cycle 1 SNFN occurred in 47% of predicted high risk ESBC patients [42 — 52%] compared to 13% [8-17%] of low risk patients. One or more FN events over 4 cycles occurred in 20% [17-24%] of predicted high risk versus 10% [6-14%] in low risk patients. The cumulative risk of FN by Kaplan-Meier estimation was 23% in high risk and 10% in low risk patients. Model sensitivity and specificity for FN were 83% and 33%, respectively. The majority of SNFN (76%) and FN (58%) events among high risk patients occurred in cycle 1. 50% of high risk patients who did not receive primary CSF prophylaxis went on to receive CSF during subsequent cycles.

Conclusions: Based on good test performance characteristics, this clinical FN prediction model also identifies ESBC patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy at high personal risk for FN (FN &gt;20%) over the first 4 cycles of chemotherapy. Half of predicted high risk patients without primary CSF prophylaxis will be given CSF in subsequent cycles after the occurrence of a neutropenic complication. This also confirms previous clinical trial findings that the majority of febrile neutropenic events occur in the first cycle.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-20-03.

P5-13-17: Multigene Signature Assays in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An NCI-Funded Systematic Review and Evidence Summary of Predictive Performance

Background: A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis of multigene signatures predictive of response to systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer was initiated as a part of an NCI-funded program on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Methods: Validation studies were sought of multigene signatures for prediction of chemotherapy response (favorable vs unfavorable) in ESBC patient cohorts different from those used for signature development. Pooled estimates [±95% CI] of assay performance for predicting clinical outcome included sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, predictive value (PV) and predictive odds ratio (POR) utilizing mixed effects models based on the method of Mantel-Haenszel. Exploratory metaregression analyses on log (POR) were also performed. Studies were classified by validation type including cell lines to patients, independent internal sample, random split sample, or external validation. Evidence for publication bias was assessed by Egger's regression intercept and Begg and Mazumdar's rank correction. Results: Dual-blind review of abstracts identified 33 studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response of which 29 stratified treatment response by signature classifier category. Classifier development was based on tumor response prediction in 20 studies, prognosis in 5, and molecular classification in 4. The Table shows assay performance measures overall and by study validation type. Assay performance based on the POR was positively associated with overall study quality (P=.015) and journal impact factor (P=.020). However, strong evidence for publication bias was observed based on both regression intercept (P&lt;.001) and rank correlation (P=.005). No significant differences in assay performance were noted for assays originally developed for response prediction (POR=5.3), prognosis (POR=6.6) or molecular classification (P=6.9) (P=.770).

P3-14-04: Assessment of Genomic Prognostic Signatures as Predictors of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer

Background: Based on results from randomized clinical trials, adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) strategies in early stage breast cancer patients (ESBC) achieve comparable long term results. Recently, a number of genomic signatures have been reported, distinguishing patients with low versus high risk of recurrence. While developed primarily as prognostic assays, these classifiers have also been proposed to be predictive of benefit from systemic chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant studies provide an opportunity to evaluate their predictive value for response to NCT.

Methods: A systematic review of gene expression profile studies in ESBC patients receiving chemotherapy was conducted. Medline search of original research articles of human studies published between January 2000 and February 2011 was based on key words and MeSH heading terms. Publications presenting outcomes for chemotherapy treated patients in groups stratified by multi-gene array signatures and utilizing a new independent cohort of patients compared to the original development cohort were selected. Information from eligible studies was extracted by dual abstraction. Reported results were synthesized into combined diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using method of Mantel-Haenszel. This analysis is restricted to neoadjuvant studies investigating the association of genomic signature prognostic categories with objective tumor response to chemotherapy. Results: A total of 42 articles were eligible for data abstraction. Out of these, 6 publications evaluated response to NCT in good (low risk of recurrence) versus poor prognosis groups based on genomic prediction. Since two of the studies analyzed the same signature on a cohort with large overlap, only 5 studies were included in the final analysis, accounting for n=918 patients. Response consisted of pathologic complete response (pCR) in 3 studies, pCR or minimal residual disease (1 study), and clinical complete response (1 study). Prognostic genomic assays included Oncotype DX (1), MammaPrint (1), Genomic Grade Index (2) and PAM50 Risk of Relapse Score (1). Eight different chemotherapy regimens were utilized. The most common drugs were cyclophosphamide, anthracyclines, taxanes, and 5-fluorouracil. Across all genomic signatures, good prognosis patients, as defined by gene expression data, demonstrated consistently low rates of response to chemotherapy (median 3%, range 0–12%) compared to patients with less favorable prognosis (median 32%, range 19–43%). Odds ratio for response in poor versus good prognosis patients ranged from 3.9 to 21.7 with combined DOR= 6.6 (95% CI 3.9−11.3, P&lt;0.0001). No heterogeneity was determined across studies (P=0.4). The C-statistic estimating assay discriminatory ability was reported in 3 studies ranged from 0.72 to 0.78.

Conclusions: Across all genomic prognostic signatures reported, only a very small proportion of patients with signature predicted good prognosis achieved complete response to NCT. This suggests low sensitivity to chemotherapy among good prognosis patients, as determined by the prognostic genomic signatures. This further confirms the association between poor prognosis tumors and higher responsiveness to chemotherapy.

Funding: NCI: UC2CA14041-01

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-04.

Abstract PD06-09: Sentinel Node Biopsy Versus Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Lymphatic mapping with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has become a widely used technology for reducing morbidity associated with breast cancer staging despite limited data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A previous review of cohort studies conducted for ASCO guidelines prior to results from RCTs found considerable variation in SNB staging accuracy. (Kim et al, Cancer 2005; Lyman GH et al J Clin Oncol 2005). Early results from several RCTs of SNB have now been reported. Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of SNB for breast cancer staging was conducted utilizing electronic databases. Study eligibility was limited to RCTs comparing SNB alone in SNB negative patients versus axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with or without prior SNB. SNB staging accuracy was assessed in study arms where patients were randomized to immediate ALND. Data abstraction was conducted by two independent reviewers. Rates of axillary, locoregional and all recurrence were evaluated along with all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q-statistic and the Inconsistency Index (I2). Weighted summary measures of relative risk (RR) and absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% CIs were estimated using the method of Mantel-Haenszel.

Results: Seven eligible RCTs were identified of which six, involving 9,389 patients, reported either SNB performance and/or rates of recurrence and mortality. Eligibility in these studies was restricted to patients with clinically negative nodes with four limiting accrual to tumors &lt;2-3 cm. Technical success of mapping was reported in five trials including 4,184 (97.1%) and 4,180 (96.8%) patients randomized to SNB versus SNB with immediate ALND, respectively. SNB was positive in 26.5% and 25.4% in those randomized to the SNB and SNB plus ALND arms, respectively. The false negative rate with SNB ranged from 5.5% to 22.9% with a summary estimate of 11.3% [7.5%-16.8%]. The median duration of follow-up across trials ranged from 12 to 95 months with an overall median of 65 months. The risk of axillary recurrence ranged from 0 - 0.8% in SNB patients and 0-0.9% in ALND patients, respectively with RR for axillary recurrence for SNB versus ALND patients of 1.59 [0.67-3.75; P=.292] and ARD of 0.2% [-0.01%-0.4%; P=.082]. The risk of locoregional recurrence ranged from 0.2%-4.6% in SNB patients and 0.8%-3.5% in ALND patients with RR of 1.13 [0.53-2.33; P=.776] and ARD of 0.3% [-1.0%-1.5%; P=.679]. Mortality from any cause has been reported in 222 and 196 patients in the SNB and ALND arms, respectively, with RR for mortality of 1.13 [0.94-1.36; P=.202] and ARD of 0.6% [-0.3%-1.6%; P=.201]. Breast cancer-specific mortality has been reported in 31 and 34 patients in the SNB and ALND arms, respectively, with a RR of 0.90 [0.56-1.45;P=.676] and ARD of 0.3% [-1.6%-1.0%; P=.676].

Conclusions: The overall false negative rate with SNB greater than 10% and limited follow-up continue to raise concerns. While no increase in risk of recurrence or mortality in low risk patients managed primarily with SNB is evident to date, continued observation in these studies will be important in addition to more specific data on the accuracy and safety of SNB in higher risk patients.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD06-09.

The economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia

Healthcare costs continue to rise with hospitalization representing the single largest component of direct medical costs associated with cancer care. Neutropenia and its complications including febrile neutropenia remain the major dose-limiting toxicity associated with systemic cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia often occurs early in the course of chemotherapy and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and cost. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent or treat febrile neutropenia and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy. A meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has confirmed the efficacy of prophylactic CSFs. Economic models based on measures of resource utilization derived from RCTs have provided estimates of expected treatment costs along with febrile neutropenia risk threshold estimates for the cost saving use of the CSFs. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential value of targeting the CSFs toward patients at greatest risk based on accurate and valid predictive models.

The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research

BACKGROUND

Reporting of pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored randomised clinical trials often result in biased findings, either due to selective reporting of studies with non-equivalent arms or publication of low-quality papers, wherein unfavourable results are incompletely described. A randomised trial should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty about the relative value of one treatment versus another. Studies in which intervention and control are thought to be non-equivalent violates the uncertainty principle.

METHODS

We examined the quality of 136 published randomised trials that focused on one disease category (multiple myeloma) and adherence to the uncertainty principle. To evaluate whether the uncertainty principle was upheld, we compared the number of studies favouring experimental treatments over standard ones. We analysed data according to the source of funding.

FINDINGS

Trials funded solely or in part by 35 profit-making organisations had a trend toward higher quality scores (mean 2.94 [SD 1.3]; median 3) than randomised trials supported by 95 governmental or other non-profit organisations (2.4 [0.8]; 2; p=0.06). Overall, the uncertainty principle was upheld, with 44% of randomised trials favouring standard treatments and 56% innovative treatments (p=0.17); mean and median preference evaluation scores were 3.7 (1.0) and 4. However, when the analysis was done according to the source of funding, studies funded by non-profit organisations maintained equipoise favouring new therapies over standard ones (47% vs 53%; p=0.608) to a greater extent than randomised trials supported solely or in part by profit-making organisations (74% vs 26%; p=0.004).

INTERPRETATION

The reported bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry may be a consequence of violations of the uncertainty principle. Sponsors of clinical trials should be encouraged to report all results and to choose appropriate comparative controls.

The economics of febrile neutropenia: implications for the use of colony-stimulating factors

The occurrence of fever and neutropenia following cancer chemotherapy generally prompts hospitalisation for evaluation and treatment. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been shown to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and the need for hospitalisation in such patients. This study was undertaken to obtain estimates of the actual institutional costs associated with FN and the impact of these costs on threshold estimates for the appropriate use of CSFs. Total hospital expenditures for patients admitted with FN over a 2 year period were studied. A cost allocation function was utilised to allocate all direct costs for non-revenue-generating support centres to revenue-generating service centres as indirect costs. A cost accounting function was then utilised to allocate direct and indirect costs for each service centre to the charge code level. Two groups of patients were defined based on diagnostic codes to represent the spectrum of patients with FN. Total hospital costs were estimated and incorporated into a cost model for the use of CSFs. Variation in the total cost of hospitalisation for FN relates primarily to differences in the average length of stay. The daily cost of hospitalisation was comparable in the groups studied, averaging between US$1675 and US$1892. Incorporation of these cost estimates into the cost model yielded FN risk threshold projections for CSF use in the range of 20-25%. Preliminary studies suggest that incorporation of non-medical, indirect and intangible costs into the CSF decision models will further decrease FN risk threshold projections. Total hospitalisation cost estimates for managing patients with FN are greater than those previously reported, reducing projected FN risk thresholds for CSF use.

Economic impact of granulopoiesis stimulating agents on the management of febrile neutropenia

The granulopoiesis-stimulating agents (GSAs) have been effectively utilized in a variety of fashions to treat or prevent febrile neutropenia or to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy with or without stem cell support. The high cost of these agents, along with their wide-scale clinical application, has fostered a number of economic analyses. Cost minimization models based on randomized trials and driven by hospitalization costs have provided febrile neutropenia risk thresholds for the use of the GSAs which have been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. A number of important studies concerning the clinical and economic impact of these agents have been reported over the past year. The clinical role and economic impact of the GSAs in the management of either established febrile neutropenia or afebrile neutropenia remains uncertain. While several studies have confirmed the clinical value of the prophylactic use of these agents in both solid tumors and hematological malignancies, few have addressed their effect on cost or quality of life. The GSAs have demonstrated clinical as well as potential economic benefit in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with either bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell support. Recent studies suggest a clinical and economic advantage for growth factor mobilization and peripheral blood stem cell support compared with bone marrow transplantation in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy. The rapid evolution of technological and supportive care methods in this area will necessitate further clinical and economic evaluation.

A Primer for Evaluating Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine demands the use of information from clinical trials to direct medical care. Knowledge of the principles of trial design and conduct is important to assess the validity of results. METHODS: The authors review the key principles behind clinical study design and conduct, and they summarize important biases and confounding issues. RESULTS: Clear hypotheses, a well-described study population, precise measurements, freedom from bias, and consideration of any interactions are attributes of good clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest level of evidence in support of a difference in outcome is associated with randomized, controlled clinical trials, particularly when combined with other randomized trials in a systematic fashion (meta-analysis).

Menopausal Status and the Impact of Early Recurrence on Breast Cancer Survival

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer represents the leading form of invasive cancer among American women, killing nearly 50,000 annually. Several prognostic factors that are associated with survival include age, race, menopausal status, and the stage of disease at presentation. METHODS: Patient characteristics were collected based on a systematic chart audit of demographic features and medical, family, and social histories. We studied the survival of 220 patients with recurrent disease out of 1,429 consecutive patients with breast cancer seen over a 15-year period. RESULTS: Patients with a disease-free interval following diagnosis of less than 24 months were more frequently premenopausal and hormone receptor-negative than those with a disease-free interval of 24 months or greater. Patients with early recurrence had a shorter survival than patients with late recurrence. Menopausal status, nodal involvement, receptor status, and the site of recurrent disease were independent predictors of survival following recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Premenopausal women with early recurrence of breast cancer experience a significantly shorter survival than those with late recurrence, even after adjustment for hormone receptor status and site of recurrence. This effect was not seen in postmenopausal women.

Importance of race on breast cancer survival

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival has been shown to be significantly less among black women than white women. The reason for this difference in survival is unclear.

METHODS

Data were obtained retrospectively on 439 women seen between 1985 and 1993 based on a detailed chart audit. The impact of race and several known prognostic factors on overall survival, time to relapse, and survival after relapse were studied.

RESULTS

Black women with breast cancer were found to have a greater risk of recurrence, shorter overall survival, and shorter survival after relapse than did white women. Black patients were found to be younger and have higher stage of disease and lower hormone receptor levels than were white patients. After adjustment for menopausal status and disease stage, a significant independent effect of race was observed on overall survival but not risk of recurrence. In multivariate analysis, a significant interaction was observed between race and age in some models. Survival after recurrence of disease was lower among black than white women after adjustment for menopausal status and estrogen receptor level.

CONCLUSION

Black women experience shorter survival times than do white women, including a shorter survival time after disease recurrence. Breast cancer in black women is associated with younger age, higher stage at presentation, and low hormone receptor levels. After adjustment for known prognostic factors, race remains a significant independent predictor of breast cancer survival.