Maureen J Aarts1, Janneke P Grutters, Frank P Peters, Caroline M Mandigers, M Wouter Dercksen, Jacqueline M Stouthard, Hans J Nortier, Hanneke W van Laarhoven, Laurence J van Warmerdam, Agnes J van de Wouw, Esther M Jacobs, Vera Mattijssen, Carin C van der Rijt, Tineke J Smilde, Annette W van der Velden, Mehmet Temizkan, Erdogan Batman, Erik W Muller, Saskia M van Gastel, Manuela A Joore, George F Borm, Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen. 1. Maureen J. Aarts, Vivianne C. Tjan-Heijnen, Janneke P. Grutters, Manuela A. Joore, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht; Frank P. Peters, Orbis Medical Centre, Sittard; Caroline M. Mandigers, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen; M. Wouter Dercksen, Maxima Medical Center, Veldhoven; Jacqueline M. Stouthard, Maasstad Medical Center, Rotterdam; Hans J. Nortier, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden; Hanneke W. van Laarhoven, George F. Borm, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Laurence J. van Warmerdam, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven; Agnes J. van de Wouw, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo; Esther M. Jacobs, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond; Vera Mattijssen, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem; Carin C. van der Rijt, Erasmus Medical Center Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam; Tineke J. Smilde, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch; Annette W. van der Velden, Martini Hospital, Groningen; Mehmet Temizkan, Hospital St Jansdal, Harderwijk; Erdogan Batman, Diaconessenhuis Leiden, Leiden; Erik W. Muller, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem; Saskia M. van Gastel, Comprehensive Cancer Center East, Nijmegen the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. METHODS: Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. RESULTS: The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. CONCLUSION: We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. METHODS: Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. RESULTS: The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. CONCLUSION: We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.