Neutropenia management in patients receiving myelosuppressive polychemotherapy for early breast cancer in Belgium: BRONS study results.

Background: Chemotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of early breast cancer (EBC). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) can reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia as primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP). The BRONS study investigated the incidence of serious neutropenic events (SNE) and G-CSF use in a Belgian population of EBC patients treated with myelosuppressive polychemotherapy.Methods: Conducted in 2011, this study was a prospective, multicentre, observational trial involving 260 patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of SNE defined as either febrile neutropenia (FN) or prolonged severe neutropenia (PSN; neutrophil count ≤0.5 × 109 for at least five days). Secondary endpoints included a description of the chemotherapeutic regimens prescribed and G-CSF use.Results: Nine percent of patients were treated with a dose-dense regimen (DD) and 91% received classical chemotherapy (CC). PP with G-CSF (PPG) was given to 20% of patients (100% in DD and 11% in CC). Eighteen percent of patients presented a SNE (4% in DD and 20% in CC) of which 15% were FN and 3% PSN. SNE occurrence was 8% in the PPG subgroup and 21% in the no-PPG subgroup. In the DD subgroup, all patients received PPG and no FN was reported. Twenty six adverse events related to G-CSF were reported in 8.2% of patients and two of these were classified as severe.Conclusion: This observational study highlights the high incidence of SNE with CC regimens in patients who do not receive PPG. It also confirms the safe profile of DD regimens with G-CSF support.

Real-world use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in ambulatory breast cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PPG) for patients at high risk (≥ 20%) of FN. In Belgium, the use of PPG is restricted by specific reimbursement criteria. The impact of these criteria on PPG use and adherence to guidelines is unknown. METHODS: This multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study aimed to describe PPG use by FN risk category in breast cancer patients who were scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy in outpatient clinics in Belgium during a 2-week period between 13 October and 12 December 2014. RESULTS: In total, 490 patients were enrolled. Median age was 57.0 years. Based on their chemotherapy regimen, 53.9, 5.1 and 41.0% of patients were at a low, intermediate and high risk of FN, respectively. Overall, 39.8% of patients received PPG (17.0, 12.0 and 73.1% of those receiving low-, intermediate- and high-risk regimens, respectively). In the high-risk category, PPG was used in 89.9% of dose-dense and in 25.0% of classical chemotherapy regimens. PPG use was adherent to EORTC guidelines in 75.3% of patients (30.6% appropriate use, 44.7% appropriate non-use). EORTC guidelines would recommend PPG use in 46.1% of this study population (n = 226), and its use was reimbursable in Belgium in 76.1% of these patients (n = 172), but only 66.4% of them received PPG (n = 150). CONCLUSIONS: Both Belgian reimbursement criteria and physician decision-making led to a proportion of patients for whom PPG treatment was recommended but finally not receiving it.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted. RESULTS: Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively. CONCLUSION: From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting. METHODS: Nine oncologists and six hematologists from different Belgian general hospitals and university centers were surveyed to collect expert opinion and real-life data (year 2007) on the use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the clinical management of FN in patients aged <65 years with breast cancer or NHL. Data were retrospectively obtained, over a 6-month observation period. RESULTS: The most frequently used regimens in breast cancer patients (n = 161) were FEC (45%), FEC-T (37%) and docetaxel alone (6%). In NHL patients (n = 39), R-CHOP-21 (33%) and R-ACVBP-14 (15%) were mainly used. Without G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP), FN occurred in 31% of breast cancer patients, and 13% had PSN. After G-CSF secondary prophylaxis (SP), 4% experienced further FN events. Only 1 breast cancer patient received PP, and did not experience a severe neutropenic event. Overall, 30% of chemotherapy cycles observed in breast cancer patients were protected by PP/SP. In 10 NHL patients receiving PP, 2 (20%) developed FN, whereas 13 (45%) of the 29 patients without PP developed FN and 3 (10%) PSN. Overall, 55% of chemotherapy cycles observed in NHL patients were protected by PP/SP. Impaired chemotherapy delivery (timing and/or dose) was reported in 40% (breast cancer) and 38% (NHL) of patients developing FN. Based on oncologist expert opinion, hospitalization rates for FN (average length of stay) without and with PP were, respectively, 48% (4.2 days) and 19% (1.5 days). Similar rates were obtained from hematologists. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the studied chemotherapy regimens being known to be associated with a moderate or high risk of FN, upfront G-CSF prophylaxis was rarely used. The observed incidence of severe neutropenic events without G-CSF prophylaxis was higher than generally reported in the literature. The impact on medical resources used is sizeable.