PURPOSE: To describe patient- and practice-related factors that physicians report affect their clinical decision to administer prophylactic pegfilgrastim to patients <24 h after completion of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle (i.e., "same-day" pegfilgrastim). METHODS: Oncologists, hematologists, and hematologist-oncologists enrolled in a US national physician panel were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, web-based survey to assess physicians' reasons for prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim. Physicians were screened as eligible if they reported prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim within the previous 6 months. The survey assessed physician perspectives and physician-perceived patient/caregiver preferences. RESULTS: Of 17,478 invited physicians, 386 answered the screening questions; 151 (39.1 %) were eligible, agreed to participate, and completed the survey. Physicians estimated that overall 41.3 % of their patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy received pegfilgrastim and that 31.6 % treated with pegfilgrastim received it on a "same-day" schedule. Approximately 36 % of physicians relied primarily on their clinical judgment when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim. The clinical consideration reported most commonly by physicians as moderately or very important when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was previous febrile neutropenia (77.6 %). The most important patient-related consideration in the decision to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was patient/caregiver travel distance, and the most important practice-related consideration was the burden to the physician's practice of "next-day" administration (vs. same-day), reported by 84.7 % and 65.1 % of physicians as moderately or very important, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical judgment, patients' risk factors, and practice burden were principal influences favoring "same-day" pegfilgrastim administration, physician-perceived patient preferences and logistical barriers also have important roles in this decision.
PURPOSE: To describe patient- and practice-related factors that physicians report affect their clinical decision to administer prophylactic pegfilgrastim to patients <24 h after completion of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle (i.e., "same-day" pegfilgrastim). METHODS: Oncologists, hematologists, and hematologist-oncologists enrolled in a US national physician panel were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, web-based survey to assess physicians' reasons for prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim. Physicians were screened as eligible if they reported prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim within the previous 6 months. The survey assessed physician perspectives and physician-perceived patient/caregiver preferences. RESULTS: Of 17,478 invited physicians, 386 answered the screening questions; 151 (39.1 %) were eligible, agreed to participate, and completed the survey. Physicians estimated that overall 41.3 % of their patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy received pegfilgrastim and that 31.6 % treated with pegfilgrastim received it on a "same-day" schedule. Approximately 36 % of physicians relied primarily on their clinical judgment when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim. The clinical consideration reported most commonly by physicians as moderately or very important when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was previous febrile neutropenia (77.6 %). The most important patient-related consideration in the decision to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was patient/caregiver travel distance, and the most important practice-related consideration was the burden to the physician's practice of "next-day" administration (vs. same-day), reported by 84.7 % and 65.1 % of physicians as moderately or very important, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical judgment, patients' risk factors, and practice burden were principal influences favoring "same-day" pegfilgrastim administration, physician-perceived patient preferences and logistical barriers also have important roles in this decision.
Authors: Caroline C Billingsley; Samuel N Jacobson; Sarah M Crafton; Aleia K Crim; Quan Li; Erinn M Hade; David E Cohn; Jeffrey M Fowler; Larry J Copeland; Ritu Salani; Floor J Backes; David M O'Malley Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Samer I Schuman; Nicholas Lambrou; Katie Robson; Stefan Glück; Nikolaos Myriounis; J Matt Pearson; Joseph A Lucci Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2009 Nov-Dec
Authors: Jenny M Whitworth; Kellie S Matthews; Kimberly A Shipman; T Michael Numnum; James E Kendrick; Larry C Kilgore; J Michael Straughn Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jeffrey Crawford; David C Dale; Nicole M Kuderer; Eva Culakova; Marek S Poniewierski; Debra Wolff; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Brennan Mange; Mark A Price; Daniel Wolin; Mark Bensink; James A Kaye; David Chandler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heinz Ludwig; Pere Gascón; Carsten Bokemeyer; Matti Aapro; Mario Boccadoro; Kris Denhaerynck; Andriy Krendyukov; Karen MacDonald; Ivo Abraham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael Metz; Dieter Semsek; Gunther Rogmans; Ulrich Hutzschenreuter; Thomas Fietz; Johanna Harde; Stefan Zacharias; Carsten Hielscher; Andreas Lorenz; Mark-Oliver Zahn; Dagmar Guth; Steffen Liebers; Michael Berghorn; Sina Grebhardt; Christiane D Matillon; Gerlinde Egerer; Karin Potthoff Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.603