OBJECTIVES: In 1991, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was reported as the first tumour type where colony stimulating factor (CSF) support was clinically effective. We reviewed 13 health services research studies that addressed CSF use as supportive care for SCLC. METHODS: Findings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership surveys, patterns of care studies, ASCO evidence-based guidelines and cost-effectiveness studies for CSF use were reviewed. RESULTS: For primary prophylaxis for SCLC, ASCO CSF clinical guidelines clearly do not support granulocyte (G)-CSF use. Cost-effectiveness models indicate that CSF use in this setting is associated with as much as US$1900 incremental patient care costs per cycle given an 18% febrile neutropenia rate. ASCO membership surveys found that < 10% of respondents supported CSF as primary prophylaxis while a patterns-of-care study found 55% use. In the secondary prophylaxis setting, ASCO CSF guidelines in 1994, 1996 and 1997 were equally supportive of CSF use versus dose reduction but dose-reduction was considered the preferred option in 2000. Over half of the ASCO member respondents in 1994 and in 1997 supported G-CSF use; cost-effectiveness models indicated that CSF use incurred an additional US$144 and 277 per cycle and the patterns of care study found 27% use of CSF in the community practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: In 2002, the findings of a decade of health services studies have shifted towards not being supportive of CSF use for primary or secondary prophylaxis for SCLC patients.
OBJECTIVES: In 1991, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was reported as the first tumour type where colony stimulating factor (CSF) support was clinically effective. We reviewed 13 health services research studies that addressed CSF use as supportive care for SCLC. METHODS: Findings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership surveys, patterns of care studies, ASCO evidence-based guidelines and cost-effectiveness studies for CSF use were reviewed. RESULTS: For primary prophylaxis for SCLC, ASCO CSF clinical guidelines clearly do not support granulocyte (G)-CSF use. Cost-effectiveness models indicate that CSF use in this setting is associated with as much as US$1900 incremental patient care costs per cycle given an 18% febrile neutropenia rate. ASCO membership surveys found that < 10% of respondents supported CSF as primary prophylaxis while a patterns-of-care study found 55% use. In the secondary prophylaxis setting, ASCO CSF guidelines in 1994, 1996 and 1997 were equally supportive of CSF use versus dose reduction but dose-reduction was considered the preferred option in 2000. Over half of the ASCO member respondents in 1994 and in 1997 supported G-CSF use; cost-effectiveness models indicated that CSF use incurred an additional US$144 and 277 per cycle and the patterns of care study found 27% use of CSF in the community practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: In 2002, the findings of a decade of health services studies have shifted towards not being supportive of CSF use for primary or secondary prophylaxis for SCLCpatients.
Authors: Elizabeth A Calhoun; Glen T Schumock; June M McKoy; Simon Pickard; Karen A Fitzner; Elizabeth A Heckinger; Eowyn F Powell; Kathyrn R McCaffrey; Charles L Bennett Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sudeep J Karve; Gregory L Price; Keith L Davis; Gerhardt M Pohl; Emily Nash Smyth; Lee Bowman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.655