Literature DB >> 9704720

Routine use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is not cost-effective and does not increase patient comfort in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer: an analysis using a Markov model.

C Chouaid1, L Bassinet, C Fuhrman, I Monnet, B Housset.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The clinical indications and economic consequences of human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prescription during small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) chemotherapy remain controversial. The aim of this study, based on a Markov model, was to assess the impact of routine G-CSF use in the treatment of SCLC on costs and patient comfort. Markov models allow the modeling SCLC chemotherapy, in which the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is continuous over time and may occur more than once. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a Markov model to compare three strategies: a chemotherapy dose reduction after FN and nonuse of G-CSF ("never" strategy), secondary use of G-CSF ("CSF if FN" strategy) and primary use of G-CSF ("systematic CSF" strategy). Model baseline probabilities were based on a review of medical records for all patients (n = 39) treated for SCLC in our unit during 1993 (when G-CSF was not used) and on published reductions in the incidence of FN obtained by using G-CSF. Two different types of rewards were used: a cost-utility scale that took into account the costs of FN (CFN) episodes and G-CSF (CCSF) courses; and a comfort-utility scale that took into account the discomfort of FN and G-CSF therapy. Costs were analyzed from the health care payer's perspective and utilities were assessed prospectively in standardized interviews with treated SCLC patients.
RESULTS: The never strategy was the least costly ($4,875 [United States] versus $5,816 and $7,690 for CSF if FN and systematic CSF) and gave the highest comfort value (378 U v 365 and 327 for CSF if FN and systematic CSF). Sensitivity analyses showed that the never strategy remains the less costly when the probability of a first FN episode was less than 49%, the probability of FN recurrence was less than 60%, or the CFN was less than $6,077, or the CCSF was greater than $863. In terms of patient comfort, the never strategy was the best choice, except for patients who considered that a course of G-CSF caused little or no discomfort, whether or not it prevented FN.
CONCLUSION: Routine use of G-CSF during SCLC chemotherapy is not justified by clinical benefits, improved patient comfort, or economic considerations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9704720     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2700

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer based on JCOG0605 trial.

Authors:  K Zhou; F Wen; P Zhang; J Zhou; H Zheng; L Sun; Q Li
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 3.  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

4.  Cost effectiveness of increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: based on data from the Medical Research Council LU19 trial.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Mark Sculpher; Richard Stephens; Wendi Qian; Nick Thatcher; David Girling
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A prospective randomised evaluation of G-CSF or G-CSF plus oral antibiotics in chemotherapy-treated patients at high risk of developing febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  Y Lalami; M Paesmans; M Aoun; R Munoz-Bermeo; K Reuss; S Cherifi; C G Alexopoulos; J Klastersky
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 6.  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 7.  Hematopoietic Growth Factors in the Management of Anemia and Febrile Neutropenia.

Authors:  Hartmut Link
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Direct treatment costs for patients with lung cancer from first recurrence to death in france.

Authors:  Anne-Chantal Braud; Christine Lévy-Piedbois; Pascal Piedbois; Youri Piedbois; Alain Livartovski; Béatrice Le Vu; Jean Trédaniel; François Reboul; Yvelise Brewer; Said Talbi; François Blanchon; Britta Paschen; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Neutropenia and G-CSF in lymphoproliferative diseases.

Authors:  Roberto Ria; Antonia Reale; Michele Moschetta; Franco Dammacco; Angelo Vacca
Journal:  Hematology       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 2.269

10.  Supportive therapy in medical therapy of head and neck tumors.

Authors:  Hartmut Link
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-12-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.