American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other health practitioners with the care of head and neck cancer survivors, including monitoring for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, and care coordination. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015, and a multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, dentistry, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, clinical psychology, speech-language pathology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, the patient perspective, and nursing was assembled. While the guideline is based on a systematic review of the current literature, most evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong recommendation. Therefore, recommendations should be viewed as consensus-based management strategies for assisting patients with physical and psychosocial effects of head and neck cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:203-239. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle. RESULTS: Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.

A retrospective evaluation of chemotherapy dose intensity and supportive care for early-stage breast cancer in a curative setting.

Early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) is commonly treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and maintaining full-dose chemotherapy on the planned schedule is associated with improved patient outcome. Retrospective analysis of patients with ESBC treated from 1997 to 2000 showed that 56 % of patients received a relative dose intensity (RDI) <85 % (Lyman et al., J Clin Oncol 21(24):4524-4531, 2003). To determine current practice, we evaluated treatment patterns at 24 US community- and hospital-based oncology practices, 79 % of which participated in the previous study. Data were abstracted from medical records of 532 patients with surgically resected ESBC (stage I-IIIa) treated from 2007 to 2009, who were ≥18 years old and had completed ≥1 cycle of one of the following regimens: docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC); doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (AC); AC followed by paclitaxel (AC-T); docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab (TCH); or docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (TAC). Endpoints included RDI, dose delays, dose reductions, grade 3/4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), FN-related hospitalization, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, and antimicrobial use. In this study, TC was the most common chemotherapy regimen (42 %), and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens were more common relative to the previously published results (89 vs <4 %). Overall, 83.8 % of patients received an RDI ≥85 %, an improvement over the previous study where 44.5 % received an RDI ≥85 %. Other changes seen between this and the previous study included a lower incidence of dose delays (16 vs 25 %) and dose reductions (21 vs 37 %) and increased use of primary prophylactic G-CSF (76 vs ~3 %). Here, 40 % of patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia, 3 % had FN, 2 % had an FN-related hospitalization, and 30 % received antimicrobial therapy; these measures were not available in the previously published results. Though RDI was higher here than in the previous study, 16.2 % of patients still received an RDI <85 %. Understanding factors that contribute to reduced RDI may further improve chemotherapy delivery, and ultimately, patient outcomes.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. CONCLUSION: PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years.

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7-12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle. METHODS: A cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and 95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Mean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD $1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD $2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF, $3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim.

Filgrastim in patients with neutropenia: potential effects on quality of life.

Treatment- and disease-related neutropenia are associated with a number of negative clinical effects such as febrile neutropenia, documented infection, hospitalisation for infection-related morbidity, infection-related mortality, and decreased ability to administer the planned chemotherapy dose on schedule. Reductions or delays in dosage have the ability to jeopardise the effectiveness of treatment by lowering response rates. Not only are clinical outcomes adversely affected, but these complications can have a negative influence on patient quality of life. Filgrastim is a haematopoietic growth factor that primarily acts to stimulate the proliferation and differentiation of neutrophil progenitor cells. Filgrastim is capable of reducing the incidence and severity of neutropenia and the complications that accompany it in patients with cancer or HIV infection. Although there are few data evaluating the effect of treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on quality of life, it is assumed that the benefits would be seen through both the reduction of treatment-related complications and the enhanced potential for long-term disease control. A new, longer-acting form of filgrastim is now available that has the potential to simplify the management of neutropenia and further improve patient quality of life by decreasing the number of necessary injections. Additional prospective controlled trials that contain quality-of-life issues as endpoints are needed.

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results. RESULTS: Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use and medical costs after initial adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of severe neutropenia associated with chemotherapy, but its cost implications following chemotherapy are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine associations between G-CSF use and medical costs after initial adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage (stage I-III) breast cancer (ESBC). METHODS: Women diagnosed with ESBC from 1999 to 2005, who had an initial course of chemotherapy beginning within 180 days of diagnosis and including ≥1 highly myelosuppressive agent, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to describe the initial chemotherapy regimen according to the classes of agents used: anthracycline ([A]: doxorubicin or epirubicin); cyclophosphamide (C); taxane ([T]: paclitaxel or docetaxel); and fluorouracil (F). Patients were classified into four study groups according to their G-CSF use: (i) primary prophylaxis, if the first G-CSF claim was within 5 days of the start of the first chemotherapy cycle; (ii) secondary prophylaxis, if the first claim was within 5 days of the start of the second or subsequent cycles; (iii) G-CSF treatment, if the first claim occurred outside of prophylactic use; and (iv) no G-CSF. Patients were described by age, race, year of diagnosis, stage, grade, estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor status, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Co-morbidity Index, chemotherapy regimen and G-CSF use. Total direct medical costs ($US, year 2009 values) to Medicare were estimated from 4 weeks after the last chemotherapy administration up to 48 months. Medical costs included those for ESBC treatment and all other medical services received after chemotherapy. Least squares regression, using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to account for censoring within the cohort, was used to evaluate adjusted associations between G-CSF use and costs. RESULTS: A total of 7026 patients were identified, with an average age of 72 years, of which 63% had stage II disease, and 59% were ER and/or PR positive. Compared with no G-CSF, those receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis were more likely to have stage III disease (30% vs. 16%; p < 0.0001), to be diagnosed in 2003-5 (87% vs. 26%; p < 0.0001), and to receive dose-dense AC-T (26% vs. 1%; p < 0.0001), while they were less likely to receive an F-based regimen (12% vs. 42%; p < 0.0001). Overall, the estimated average direct medical cost over 48 months after initial chemotherapy was $US 42,628. In multivariate analysis, stage II or III diagnosis (compared with stage I), NCI Co-morbidity Index score 1 or ≥2 (compared with 0), or FAC or standard AC-T (each compared with AC) were associated with significantly higher IPW 48-month costs. Adjusting for patient demographic and clinical factors, costs in the G-CSF primary prophylaxis group were not significantly different from those not receiving primary prophylaxis (the other three study groups combined). In an analysis that included four separate study groups, G-CSF treatment was associated with significantly greater costs (incremental cost = $US 2938; 95% CI 285, 5590) than no G-CSF. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs after initial chemotherapy were not statistically different between those receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis and those receiving no G-CSF, after adjusting for potential confounders.

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

We investigated the incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related complications in elderly (> or =65 years) breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy supported by pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PP; n=150) or current practice (CP) neutropenia management (n=104) in a subanalysis of NeuCuP (Neulasta) vs. current practice neutropenia management). Studies involving regimens with moderately high to high (> or =15%) FN risk were identified by literature review, and individual patient data were integrated for analysis. FN incidence was 6% (95% CI: 2, 10%) in the PP group and 24% (95% CI: 16, 32%) in the CP group. In cycle 1, incidences were 3 and 15%, respectively. FN-related hospitalisation incidence was 5% (PP group) and 15% (CP group), while dose reductions (>/=15%) occurred in 15 and 29% of patients. Pegfilgrastim provided effective PP in elderly patients, a population who may be vulnerable to chemotherapy-related FN and for whom current practice may not provide adequate protection.

Pegfilgrastim: a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with sustained duration of action.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim (Neupogen, Amgen, Inc.) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen, Inc.) are frequently used in clinical practice for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its potentially life-threatening complications. Due to its unique neutrophil-mediated clearance, pegfilgrastim can be administered once per chemotherapy cycle. Clinical trials have shown that a single, fixed subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim 6 mg is comparable in safety and efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim for decreasing the incidence of infection following myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Postregistrational trials have been conducted to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim with emerging dose-dense regimens, in myeloid cancers and for mobilisation and engraftment of autologous stem cells. Ongoing clinical trials continue to explore further potential uses for pegfilgrastim.

Guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network on the use of myeloid growth factors with cancer chemotherapy: a review of the evidence.

The prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors reduces the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia and infection-related mortality. Perhaps most importantly, the prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) has been shown to reduce the need for chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that may limit chemotherapy dose intensity, thereby increasing the potential for prolonged disease-free and overall survival in the curative setting. National surveys have shown that the majority of patients with potentially curable breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) do not receive prophylactic CSF support. In this issue, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network presents guidelines for the use of myeloid growth factors in patients with cancer. These guidelines recommend a balanced clinical evaluation of the potential benefits and harms associated with chemotherapy to define the treatment intention, followed by a careful assessment of the individual patient's risk for febrile neutropenia and its complications. The decision to use prophylactic CSFs is then based on the patient's risk and potential benefit from such treatment. The routine prophylactic use of CSFs in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy is recommended in patients at high risk (>20%) of developing febrile neutropenia or related complications that may compromise treatment. Where compelling clinical indications are absent, the potential for CSF prophylaxis to reduce or offset costs by preventing hospitalization for FN should be considered. The clinical, economic, and quality of life data in support of these recommendations are reviewed, and important areas of ongoing research are highlighted.