PURPOSE: In 2002, pegfilgrastim was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the benefits of dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy, especially for hormone receptor (HR) -negative tumors, were reported. We examined first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use (FC-CSF) before and after 2002 and estimated US expenditures for dose-dense chemotherapy. METHODS: We identified patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare greater than 65 years old with stages I to III breast cancer who had greater than one chemotherapy claim within 6 months of diagnosis(1998 to 2005) and classified patients with an average cycle length less than 21 days as having received dose-dense chemotherapy. The associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with the receipt of any colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and FC-CSF use were analyzed by using generalized estimating equations. CSF costs were estimated for patients who were undergoing dose-dense chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among the 10,773 patients identified, 5,266 patients (48.9%) had a CSF claim. CSF use was stable between 1998 and 2002 and increased from 36.8% to 73.7% between 2002 and 2005, FC-CSF use increased from 13.2% to 67.9%, and pegfilgrastim use increased from 4.1% to 83.6%. In a multivariable analysis, CSF use was associated with age and chemotherapy type and negatively associated with black/Hispanic race, rural residence, and shorter chemotherapy duration. FC-CSF use was associated with high socioeconomic status but not with age or race/ethnicity. The US annual CSF expenditure for women with HR-positive tumors treated with dose-dense chemotherapy is estimated to be $38.8 million. CONCLUSION: A rapid increase in FC-CSF use occurred over a short period of time, which was likely a result of the reported benefits of dose-dense chemotherapy and the ease of pegfilgrastim administration. Because of the increasing evidence that elderly HR-positive patients do not benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy, limiting pegfilgrastim use would combat the increasing costs of cancer care.
PURPOSE: In 2002, pegfilgrastim was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the benefits of dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy, especially for hormone receptor (HR) -negative tumors, were reported. We examined first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use (FC-CSF) before and after 2002 and estimated US expenditures for dose-dense chemotherapy. METHODS: We identified patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare greater than 65 years old with stages I to III breast cancer who had greater than one chemotherapy claim within 6 months of diagnosis(1998 to 2005) and classified patients with an average cycle length less than 21 days as having received dose-dense chemotherapy. The associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with the receipt of any colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and FC-CSF use were analyzed by using generalized estimating equations. CSF costs were estimated for patients who were undergoing dose-dense chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among the 10,773 patients identified, 5,266 patients (48.9%) had a CSF claim. CSF use was stable between 1998 and 2002 and increased from 36.8% to 73.7% between 2002 and 2005, FC-CSF use increased from 13.2% to 67.9%, and pegfilgrastim use increased from 4.1% to 83.6%. In a multivariable analysis, CSF use was associated with age and chemotherapy type and negatively associated with black/Hispanic race, rural residence, and shorter chemotherapy duration. FC-CSF use was associated with high socioeconomic status but not with age or race/ethnicity. The US annual CSF expenditure for women with HR-positive tumors treated with dose-dense chemotherapy is estimated to be $38.8 million. CONCLUSION: A rapid increase in FC-CSF use occurred over a short period of time, which was likely a result of the reported benefits of dose-dense chemotherapy and the ease of pegfilgrastim administration. Because of the increasing evidence that elderly HR-positive patients do not benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy, limiting pegfilgrastim use would combat the increasing costs of cancer care.
Authors: Fred Doloresco; Cory Fominaya; Glen T Schumock; Lee C Vermeulen; Linda Matusiak; Robert J Hunkler; Nilay D Shah; James M Hoffman Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2011-05-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Jennifer L Malin; Benjamin Kim; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Solomon B Makgoeng; Nadia Howlader; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gary H Lyman; David C Dale; Debra A Wolff; Eva Culakova; Marek S Poniewierski; Nicole M Kuderer; Jeffrey Crawford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Donna Buono; Judith S Jacobson; Russell B McBride; Wei Yann Tsai; Kathie Ann Joseph; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Donna Buono; Russell B McBride; Wei Yann Tsai; Kathy Ann Joseph; Victor R Grann; Judith S Jacobson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Xianglin L Du; Shenying Fang; Sally W Vernon; Hashem El-Serag; Y Tina Shih; Jessica Davila; Monica L Rasmus Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason D Wright; Ana I Tergas; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Ling Chen; Alfred I Neugut; Catherine A Richards; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright; Emerson Lim; Donna L Buono; Wei Yann Tsai; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helen E Dinkelspiel; Ana I Tergas; Lilli A Zimmerman; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Ling Chen; Grace Hillyer; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sean Maroongroge; Simon P Kim; Sarah Mougalian; Kimberly Johung; Roy H Decker; Pamela R Soulos; Jessica B Long; Cary P Gross; James B Yu Journal: Yale J Biol Med Date: 2015-06-01