Literature DB >> 8823330

Use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: the American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. The Health Services Research Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

C L Bennett1, T J Smith, J C Weeks, A B Bredt, J Feinglass, J H Fetting, B E Hillner, M R Somerfield, R J Winn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Dissemination of use of the hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) is unprecedented in oncology, with almost all physicians having experience with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) shortly after the drugs received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1991. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee sought to assess patterns of use of CSFs before dissemination of its first-ever publication of ASCO guidelines.
METHODS: A questionnaire describing clinical scenarios was mailed to American oncologists and hematologists who practice medical oncology. In each scenario, the physician was asked whether he would prefer to use a CSF to prevent or treat neutropenia.
RESULTS: The response rate to the mailed survey was 49% (N = 475). Most physicians preferred to use CSFs for secondary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy at rates of 44% to 85%, rather than reduce doses. Patterns of use did not differ for palliative, curative, or adjuvant chemotherapy. While the majority of CSF patterns of care were similar to those recommended in the ASCO guidelines, more than half of the physicians chose to use CSFs in the treatment of febrile neutropenia, an area not supported in the subsequent guidelines. In general, physicians at academic medical centers and in Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) practices were more likely to prefer dose-reduction strategies over addition of CSFs, while fee-for-service physicians preferred the opposite strategies.
CONCLUSION: Variations in CSF preferences for use were related to differences in clinical characteristics (history of afebrile v febrile neutropenia), drug characteristics (G-CSF or GM-CSF), and physician practice characteristics (HMO or fee-for-service setting). However, before dissemination of the guidelines, the majority of American oncologists preferred strategies that were subsequently included in the ASCO CSF guidelines. CSF guidelines would be most likely to reduce CSF use for treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8823330     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.9.2511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  9 in total

1.  Impact of ASCO guidelines for the use of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors (CSFs): survey results of fifteen Paris university hospitals.

Authors:  I Debrix; I Madelaine; N Grenet; D Roux; C Bardin; F Le Mercier; J E Fontan; O Connor; A Pointereau; P Tilleul
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  1999-12

Review 2.  Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients.

Authors:  David C Dale
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Neoadjuvant treatment with paclitaxel and epirubicin in invasive breast cancer: a phase II study.

Authors:  David Sarid; Ilan G Ron; Fani Sperber; Yona Stadler; Perry Kahan; Felix Kovner; Rami Ben-Yosef; Sylvia Marmor; Yulia Grinberg; Natalie Maimon; Juliana Weinstein; Neora Yaal-Hahoshen
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.859

4.  Personalized medicine and cancer supportive care: appropriate use of colony-stimulating factor support of chemotherapy.

Authors:  Nicole M Kuderer; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited.

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

Review 6.  Cost analyses of adjunct colony stimulating factors for older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia : can they improve clinical decision making?

Authors:  Charles L Bennett; Glen T Schumock
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 7.  Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Authors:  Marc Esser; Helmut Brunner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  G-CSF utilization rate and prescribing patterns in United States: associations between physician and patient factors and GCSF use.

Authors:  Gisoo Barnes; Ashutosh Pathak; Lee Schwartzberg
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  A questionnaire survey of pharmacists regarding the clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors.

Authors:  Tetsuya Sasaki; Yasuhisa Kato; Atsushi Sato; Noriko Usui; Eishi Baba; Toshimi Takano; Nobuyuki Susumu; Kazunori Ohnishi; Hitomi Nishimoto; Katsuyuki Kiura
Journal:  J Pharm Health Care Sci       Date:  2018-01-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.