BACKGROUND: Use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) as primary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has significant cost implications. We examined use of g-csf for early-stage breast cancer patients at our centre. The study also examined the pattern of nurse-led patient teaching with respect to drug self-administration. METHODS: Patients who received g-csf between November 2009 and October 2010 were identified from pharmacy records. After consent had been obtained, electronic charts were examined to extract data on chemotherapy and use of g-csf. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain information on the utilization of home-care nursing visits for g-csf administration. RESULTS: The study analyzed 36 patients. Median age was 58 years (range: 31-78 years). Of the 36 patients, 30 (83%) had received adjuvant treatment, and 6 (17%), neoadjuvant treatment. Most patients (71%) received 10 days (range: 7-10 days) of filgrastim. Of the 36 patients, 29 (81%) received g-csf as primary prophylaxis. In 90% of those patients, primary prophylaxis commenced with the taxane component of treatment. Of the 36 patients, 7 (19%) received g-csf after neutropenia, including 2 who had febrile neutropenia. In 96% of the patients, injections were received at home with the help of a nurse; those patients were subsequently taught self-injection techniques. The median number of nursing visits was 2 (range: 1-3 visits). Most patients were satisfied with the home care and g-csf teaching they received. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the g-csf used in breast cancer treatment during the study period was given for primary prophylaxis. A major reason for the decision to use g-csf appears to have been physician-perceived risk of febrile neutropenia. Delivery of g-csf by home-care nurses was well received by patients.
BACKGROUND: Use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) as primary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has significant cost implications. We examined use of g-csf for early-stage breast cancerpatients at our centre. The study also examined the pattern of nurse-led patient teaching with respect to drug self-administration. METHODS:Patients who received g-csf between November 2009 and October 2010 were identified from pharmacy records. After consent had been obtained, electronic charts were examined to extract data on chemotherapy and use of g-csf. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain information on the utilization of home-care nursing visits for g-csf administration. RESULTS: The study analyzed 36 patients. Median age was 58 years (range: 31-78 years). Of the 36 patients, 30 (83%) had received adjuvant treatment, and 6 (17%), neoadjuvant treatment. Most patients (71%) received 10 days (range: 7-10 days) of filgrastim. Of the 36 patients, 29 (81%) received g-csf as primary prophylaxis. In 90% of those patients, primary prophylaxis commenced with the taxane component of treatment. Of the 36 patients, 7 (19%) received g-csf after neutropenia, including 2 who had febrile neutropenia. In 96% of the patients, injections were received at home with the help of a nurse; those patients were subsequently taught self-injection techniques. The median number of nursing visits was 2 (range: 1-3 visits). Most patients were satisfied with the home care and g-csf teaching they received. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the g-csf used in breast cancer treatment during the study period was given for primary prophylaxis. A major reason for the decision to use g-csf appears to have been physician-perceived risk of febrile neutropenia. Delivery of g-csf by home-care nurses was well received by patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Growth factor; breast cancer; chemotherapy; drug administration; febrile neutropenia; neutropenia; prophylaxis
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Marek Z Wojtukiewicz; Robert R Carroll; Sergei A Tjulandin; Luis Javier Barajas-Figueroa; Brian L Wiens; Theresa A Neumann; Lee S Schwartzberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Y Madarnas; S F Dent; S F Husain; A Robinson; S Alkhayyat; W M Hopman; J L Verreault; T Vandenberg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alexandre Chan; Wing Hang Fu; Vivianne Shih; Jurja Chua Coyuco; Sze Huey Tan; Raymond Ng Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Zhimei Liu; Rob Boer; Sean D Sullivan; Jennifer Malin; Quan V Doan; Robert W Dubois; Gary H Lyman Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Stephen Jones; Frankie Ann Holmes; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Joanne L Blum; Svetislava J Vukelja; Kristi J McIntyre; John E Pippen; James H Bordelon; Robert L Kirby; John Sandbach; William J Hyman; Donald A Richards; Robert G Mennel; Kristi A Boehm; Wally G Meyer; Lina Asmar; Daniel Mackey; Stefan Riedel; Hyman Muss; Michael A Savin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John Hilton; Lisa Vandermeer; Marta Sienkiewicz; Sasha Mazzarello; Brian Hutton; Carol Stober; Dean Fergusson; Phillip Blanchette; Anil A Joy; A Brianne Bota; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.603