Efficacy and cost of G-CSF derivatives for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients. METHODS: 43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim (P = 0.032). DISCUSSION: Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.

Potential reduction of hospital stay length with outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in a regional cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score identifies patients at low risk of serious complications. Outpatient management programs have been successfully piloted in other Australian metropolitan cancer centers. AIM: To assess current management of febrile neutropenia at our regional cancer center and determine potential impacts of an outpatient management program. METHOD: We performed a retrospective review of medical records for all patients admitted at our regional institution with febrile neutropenia between 1 January 2016, and 31 December 2018. We collected information regarding patient characteristics, determined the MASCC risk index score, and if low risk, we determined the eligibility for outpatient care and potential reduction in length of stay and cost benefit. RESULTS: A total of 98 hospital admissions were identified. Of these, 66 had a MASCC low-risk index score. Fifty-eight patients met the eligibility criteria for outpatient management. Seventy-one percent were female. The most common tumor type was breast cancer. Forty-eight percent were treated with curative intent. The median length of stay was 3 days. The median potential reduction in length of stay for each admission was 2 days. The total potential reduction in length of stay was 198 days. No admission resulted in serious complications. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates a significant number of hospital admission days can be avoided. We intend to conduct a prospective pilot study at our center to institute an outpatient management program for such low-risk patients with potential reduction in hospital length of stay. This will have significant implications on health resource usage, service provision planning, and patient quality of life.

National cost savings from an ambulatory program for low-risk febrile neutropenia patients in Australia.

Objective The management of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) patients through ambulatory programs has demonstrated comparative safety and effectiveness to in-patient strategies. However, there is limited evidence of benefits of changing practice, particularly on a national scale. The aim of this study was to estimate costs and benefits of the program over a 10-year time horizon. Methods A comparative cost analysis from a health system perspective was performed, comparing costs and length of stay (LOS) of patients enrolled in an ambulatory program to a historical cohort who did not receive the program. Generalised linear models were used for analysis and bootstrapped to account for uncertainty. National data of identified FN admissions were used to inform future projections, with varying proportions of low-risk patients and eligibility for the ambulatory program. Results The overall LOS for patients in ambulatory cohort was 1.9 days shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-2.8 days), a 50% reduction in in-patient bed-days. Although patients in the ambulatory cohort incurred additional costs due to care received outside hospital (mean (± s.d.) A$828.03 ± 124.30), the mean total cost incurred remained substantially lower than that of the historical cohort (A$2979 lower; 95% CI A$772-5391). On a national scale, this could translate into A$62.7 million in costs averted and 41347 bed-days saved over 10 years if the low-risk prediction rate and eligibility for ambulatory programs remained at currently observed rates. Conclusions The wider implementation of a safe and effective ambulatory program to manage low-risk FN patients can result in significant return-on-investment for the healthcare system by eliminating avoidable costs due to unnecessary lengthy hospital admissions. What is known about the topic? There is strong evidence demonstrating out-patient treatment of low-risk FN patients to be an effective and cost-effective strategy compared with continued in-patient hospitalisation. What does this paper add? This study demonstrates the sustainability of the ambulatory program in ensuring cost benefits and in-patient beds through real-life implementation data. It also provides evidence of the substantial cost and bed-days potentially averted when the cost savings and difference in LOS are estimated on a national scale over a 10-year time horizon. What are the implications for practitioners? The management of low-risk FN patients through ambulatory or out-patient programs is a safe and effective approach. There is strong evidence demonstrating the likely cost savings and considerable bed-days saved, which can be reallocated to meet other medical demands.

Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in Japanese patients with primary breast cancer: post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN), a decrease in blood neutrophils accompanied by fever, is a major adverse event (AE) associated with cancer chemotherapy. We aimed to estimate the direct medical costs associated with FN management in breast cancer patients within a clinical trial with pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). METHODS: We obtained data from 346 Japanese breast cancer patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing FN incidence due to TC adjuvant chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) between pegfilgrastim-treated and placebo groups. We estimated mean costs for chemotherapy drugs, drugs for all AEs and FN, and hospitalization for all AEs and FN. We also calculated mean costs associated with drugs and hospitalization for FN specifically for patients who developed FN in the placebo group. RESULTS: For the pegfilgrastim and placebo groups, the total cost during the first cycle of chemotherapy was ¥189 135 and ¥98 106. This difference is associated with prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim. Our analysis clarified in the placebo group that FN incidents of 119/173 (68.6%), the mean drug cost related to all AEs and hospitalization caused by the first cycle of chemotherapy were ¥14 411and ¥11 180, respectively. The cost of each for FN treatment was ¥16 429 for the placebo group. The mean treatment cost for patients who developed FN in placebo group, was ¥11 145 for drugs and ¥28 420 for drugs and hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim reduced the costs incurred for both drugs and hospitalization for AEs as well as FN, although the total medical cost during the chemotherapy increased. Our study constitutes baseline data for further health economic evaluations of pegfilgrastim.

Management of Febrile Neutropenias in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Cost-Minimization Analysis Between Adult Versus Pediatric Units.

PURPOSE: Management of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) differs between adult and pediatric units, especially regarding febrile neutropenia (FN). In our previous study, we found that AYAs treated in adult units were significantly less hospitalized for FN than in pediatric units, without difference in morbimortality. The objective of this work was to assess the economic impact of these practices. METHODS: This study retrospectively collected data from the medical records of AYAs treated at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Léon Bérard, Lyon, France, in the Euro-E-W-I-N-G99 protocol between September 1, 2000 and May 31, 2013. We focused on FN occurring after VIDE (vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, etoposide) courses. Costs were calculated using a micro-costing technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2014-Euro); the time horizon was the induction period. Multivariate analyses were performed on the total cost and cost of FN. Uncertainty was captured by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Forty-four AYAs (18 in the adult sector, 26 in the pediatric sector) received 260 courses of VIDE. Mean cost of care was €37,544 in the pediatric sector, including €11,948 (32%) for FN (€11,851 in hospitalization), versus €34,677 in the adult sector, including €6,143 (18%) for FN (€5,789 in hospitalization). Cost for FN was significantly higher in pediatric units (difference in mean cost of €5,830 per patient, 95% bootstrapped confidence interval [1,939.1; 10,028.9]). In multivariate analysis, the only factor significantly influencing this cost difference was the sector of care. The most sensitive parameter was the unit cost of conventional hospitalization. CONCLUSION: These results support the adult sector strategy, in agreement with the results of our first work showing comparable effectiveness.

Therapeutic Use of Filgrastim for Established Febrile Neutropenia Is Cost Effective Among Patients With Solid Tumors and Lymphomas.

PURPOSE: With the emergence of biosimilar filgrastim to the market, there is a gradual decrease in the listed price of the originator product of filgrastim over the years, and this could have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of filgrastim in the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN). A cost-effectiveness analysis would allow clinicians to make informed decision when considering the therapeutic filgrastim among low-risk FN patients. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding therapeutic filgrastim to antibiotics in the treatment of established FN among patients with solid tumors and lymphomas. METHODS: A decision tree model was created to compare two treatment options for established FN as follows: (1) antibiotics alone (standard care) and (2) antibiotics with therapeutic filgrastim (comparator). The target population was a hypothetical cohort of adult cancer patients with solid tumors or lymphomas hospitalized with FN in Singapore. The analysis was performed from a hospital's perspective over a 21-day time horizon. The main outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results. FINDINGS: Compared with antibiotics alone, the treatment strategy of antibiotics with therapeutic filgrastim was a dominant choice, incurring a cost saving of US$125 per patient (comparator versus standard care: US$9110 versus US$9235) and additional health benefit of 0.0007 QALY gained per patient (comparator versus standard care: 0.0450 versus 0.0443). Model results were robust against the parameter variations in the one-way sensitivity analyses, but increasing the cost of filgrastim beyond US$87 per injection would increase the ICER to >US$50,000/QALY. Furthermore, the strategy of antibiotics with therapeutic filgrastim was the preferred choice (dominant or cost-effective) in 83.7% of the model iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000/QALY. IMPLICATIONS: From a hospital's perspective, the therapeutic filgrastim, in conjunction with antibiotics, in the treatment of FN is cost effective. This provides evidence to support the routine use of filgrastim for the treatment of FN among adult cancer patients with solid tumors and lymphomas.

Hospitalizations, outcomes, and management costs of febrile neutropenia in patients from a managed care population.

PURPOSE: The study objective was to evaluate chemotherapy treatment patterns and incidence, cost, and resource utilization of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (FNH) in patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated delivery system. METHODS: Adults ≥18 years with any stage breast cancer, lung cancer, or NHL who initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy from 01/01/2006 to 12/31/2009 were included. Chemotherapy dose delays ≥7 days, relative dose intensity (RDI), regimen switching, FNH and all-cause mortality, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and antibiotic use, and healthcare utilization/cost were evaluated by cancer type, regimen, and/or cycle. RESULTS: Among 3314 breast cancer patients, 25.3% received an RDI ≤85%, 13.9% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 2.0%, and 20.2% received primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Among those with FNH, mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 4.1 days, and mean total costs were $20,462. Among 1443 lung cancer patients, 17.9% had an RDI ≤85%, 8.0% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 25.2%, and 4.5% received primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Among those with FNH, mean LOS was 6.8 days, and mean total costs were $32,964. Among 581 NHL patients, 27.9% had an RDI ≤85% and 22.4% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 13%. Among those with FNH, mean LOS was 7.9 days, and mean total costs were $37,555. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variability was observed among different cancer types and chemotherapy regimens. Given the variability, detailed insight into incidence, management, and burden of FN can help inform clinical decision making.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the prevention of febrile neutropenia: review of cost-effectiveness models.

INTRODUCTION: We reviewed the evolution of the methods used in cost-effectiveness analyses of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in the primary and secondary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy. Areas covered: FN is a side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. The risk of FN may depend on the drugs used within a chemotherapy regimen, and an FN event may cause chemotherapy dose reductions or delays in subsequent cycles. Expert commentary: More recent pharmacoeconomic models have reflected these clinical observations by modeling sequential chemotherapy regimens to account for FN risk on a per-cycle basis, and by accounting for chemotherapy dose reductions and consequent survival losses.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of febrile neutropenia prevention with primary versus secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review.

The adoption of primary (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN), with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in breast cancer (BC) could be affected by its "value for money". This systematic review examined (i) cost-effectiveness of PP versus SP, (ii) FN threshold at which PP is cost-effective including the guidelines 20 % threshold and (iii) potential impact of G-CSF efficacy assumptions on outcomes. The systematic review identified all cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (CEA/CUA) involving PP versus SP G-CSF for AC in BC that met predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five relevant CEA/CUA were identified. These CEA/CUA examined different AC regimens (TAC = 2; FEC-D = 1; TC = 2) and G-CSF formulations (filgrastim "F" = 4; pegfilgrastim "P" = 4) with varying baseline FN-risk (range 22-32 %), mortality (range 1.4-6.0 %) and utility (range 0.33-0.47). The potential G-CSF benefit, including FN risk reduction with P versus F, varied among models. Overall, relative to SP, PP was not associated with good value for money, as per commonly utilized CE thresholds, at the baseline FN rates examined, including the consensus 20 % FN threshold, in most of these studies. The value for money associated with PP versus SP was primarily dependent on G-CSF benefit assumptions including reduced FN mortality and improved BC survival. PP G-CSF for FN prevention in BC patients undergoing AC may not be a cost-effective strategy at the guidelines 20 % FN threshold.

Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent. METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented. CONCLUSION: In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in solid tumor and lymphoma patients - an observational study in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective was to describe the total direct inpatient costs among solid tumor and lymphoma patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and the factors that were associated with higher direct cost. The secondary objective was to describe the out-of-pocket patient payments and the factors that were associated with higher out-of-pocket patient payments. METHODS: This was a single-center observational study conducted at the largest cancer center in Singapore. All of the adult cancer patients hospitalized due to FN from 2009 to 2012 were studied. The primary outcomes were the total hospital cost and the out-of-pocket patient payments (adjusted by government subsidy) per FN episode. Univariate analysis and multiple linear regression were conducted to identify the factors associated with higher FN costs. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty seven adult cancer patients were documented with FN-related hospitalizations. The mean total hospital cost was US$4,193 (95% CI: US$3,779-4,607) and the mean out-of-pocket patient payment was US$2,230 (95% CI: US$1,976-2,484), per FN episode. The factors associated with a higher total hospital cost were longer length of stay, severe sepsis, and lymphoma as underlying cancer. The out-of-pocket patient payment was positively associated with longer length of stay, severe sepsis, lymphoma diagnosed as underlying cancer, the therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF), the private ward class, and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: The total hospital cost and out-of-pocket patient payments of FN management in lymphoma cases were substantial compared with other solid tumors. Factors associated with a higher FN management cost may be useful for developing appropriate strategies to reduce the cost of FN for cancer patients.

Direct costs associated with febrile neutropenia in inpatients with hematological diseases in Singapore.

PURPOSE: This prospective cohort study aims to investigate the direct hospitalization costs incurred during febrile neutropenia (FN) in inpatients with underlying hematological conditions and also to elucidate the factors associated with a high cost of managing febrile neutropenia. METHODS: Patients with underlying hematological conditions and documented FN were recruited between October 2008 and February 2011. FN-related costs included all costs incurred from the first day of FN until the last day of antibiotics prescribed. Relevant clinical factors were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models to elucidate the factors that were associated with higher costs of FN. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were recruited with 303 documented episodes of FN. In non-transplant patients, 75.6 % of the FN episodes occurred. The median and mean cost incurred for each FN episode was USD9,060 (interquartile range = USD5,047-16,631) and USD15,298 (standard deviation ± USD17,459), respectively, accounting for approximately 38 % of the median total hospitalization cost and 37 % of the mean total hospitalization cost. The ward charges (44.1 %) constituted the largest component of the cost, followed by the laboratory charges (27.3 %) and medications (18.7 %), of which antimicrobials constituted 9.6 % of the cost of FN. The factors associated with higher costs of FN include cytomegalovirus reactivation (p < 0.001), longer duration of antibiotics (p < 0.001), lower absolute neutrophil count nadir (p < 0.001), allogeneic stem cell transplantation (p < 0.01), and diagnosis of invasive fungal infection (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The economic cost of management of FN in hematology inpatients is considerable and in addition to the overall risk of mortality for this condition. Strategies to reduce FN or ameliorate its costs are essential for this group of patients.

Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia.

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.

A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide up-to-date estimates of the clinical and economic burden that occurs during inpatient treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2007-2010 hospital discharge data from the Premier database. The study population included adult patients with discharge diagnoses of neutropenia (ICD-9 code 288.0x) with fever or infection and receipt of intravenous antibiotics and female breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary study outcomes were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospitalization cost for each patient's first FN-related hospitalization. Logistic regressions (for mortality) and multivariate linear regressions (for LOS and cost) were conducted to assess the effect of comorbidities and infection types on study outcomes, adjusting for other patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Among 16,273 cancer patients hospitalized with FN, the inpatient case fatality rate was 10.6%, mean LOS was 8.6 days, and mean total hospitalization cost was $18,880. Lung cancer patients had the highest inpatient case fatality rate (15.7%), and NHL patients had the longest LOS (10.1 days) and the highest cost ($24,218). Multivariate analyses showed that most comorbidities were associated with a greater risk of mortality, longer LOS, and higher cost. Septicemia/bacteremia and pneumonia were associated with a greater risk of mortality, and most types of infection were associated with a longer LOS and higher cost. LIMITATIONS: The total burden of FN may be under-estimated in this study because outpatient treatment and any patient deaths or costs that occurred outside of Premier hospitals could not be captured. CONCLUSIONS: FN-related hospitalizations among cancer patients are costly and accompanied by considerable mortality risk. Substantial differences in the clinical and economic burden of FN exist depending on cancer types, comorbidities, and infection types.