Rates of febrile neutropenia and its causes in the real world.

Aim: Characterize febrile neutropenia in the real-world and explore potentially modifiable risk factors.Patients & methods: Characteristics of patient presenting with febrile neutropenia after systemic cancer treatment were investigated, with a thorough evaluation of potential risk factors.Results: The rate of febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization was comparable with clinical trials (mean absolute difference 2%, 95% CI: -1-4%; p = 0.29). The in-hospital mortality rate was 6%. Most cases resulted from low-risk regimens (50%) and 18.2% presented no apparent risk factors. 42.4% of patients presented modifiable factors potentially involved in the occurrence of febrile neutropenia.Conclusion: Febrile neutropenia rate in contemporary real-world evidence is comparable with clinical trials. Appropriate G-CSF administration and avoidance of potentially harmful drug-interactions represent potential areas for improvement.

[Box: see text].

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN): healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients in the US.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a known side effect of chemotherapy, often requiring hospitalization. Economic burden increases with an FN episode and estimates of cost per episode should be updated from real-world data. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of FN episodes in patients with non-myeloid malignancies from 2014 to 2021 was performed in IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database. FN episodes were defined as having same-day claims for neutropenia and fever or infection, plus antibiotic in outpatient settings, following a claim for chemotherapy; index date was defined as the first claim for neutropenia/fever/infection. Patients receiving bone marrow/stem cell transplant and CAR-T therapy were excluded, as were select hematologic malignancies or COVID-19. Healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated and described overall, by episode type (w/wo hospitalization), index year, malignancy type, NCI comorbidity score, and age group. RESULTS: 7,033 FN episodes were identified from 6,825 patients. Most episodes had a hospitalization (91.2%) and 86% of patients had ≥1 risk factor for FN. Overall, FN episodes had a mean (SD) FN-related cost of $25,176 ($39,943). Episodes with hospitalization had higher average FN-related costs versus those without hospitalization ($26,868 vs $7,738), and costs increased with comorbidity score (NCI=0: $23,095; NCI >0-2: $26,084; NCI ≥2: $26,851). CONCLUSIONS: FN continues to be associated with significant economic burden, and varied by cancer type, comorbidity burden, and age. In this analysis, most FN episodes were not preceded by GCSF prophylaxis. The results of this study highlight the opportunity to utilize GCSF in appropriate oncology scenarios.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Consensus survey on the management of children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and at low risk of severe infection.

Our aim was to identify national consensus criteria for the management of children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), for evidence-based step-down treatment approaches for patients classified at low risk of severe infection. In 2018, a five-section, 38-item survey was e-mailed to all pediatric hematology and oncology units in France (n = 30). The five sections contained statements on possible consensus criteria for the (i) definition of FN, (ii) initial management of children with FN, (iii) conditions required for initiating step-down therapy in low-risk patients, (iv) management strategy for low-risk patients, and (v) antibiotic treatment on discharge. Consensus was defined by respondents' combined answers (somewhat agree and strongly agree) at 75% or more. Sixty-five physicians (participation rate: 58%), all specialists in pediatric onco-hematology, from 18 centers completed the questionnaire. A consensus was reached on 22 of the 38 statements, including the definition of FN, the criteria for step-down therapy in low-risk children, and the initial care of these patients. There was no consensus on the type and duration of antibiotic therapy on discharge. In conclusion, a consensus has been reached on the criteria for initiating evidence-based step-down treatment of children with FN and a low risk of severe infection but not for the step-down antimicrobial regimen.

Comparison of CISNE and MASCC Score in Predicting Complications on Post Chemotherapy Febrile Neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an oncologic emergency which commonly occurrs in patients who undergo chemotherapy, with a mortality rate of 12.5%. Risk stratification in FN plays an important role in increasing the accuracy of therapy. This study aims to compare the performance between CISNE score and MASCC score in predicting complications on post-chemotherapy FN in solid and hematologic malignancy.  Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study on FN patients undergoing inpatient treatment at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital between July 2015 and December 2019. Basic demographic and clinical data were collected from medical records. Subjects were grouped based on the CISNE and MASCC score, and complications during hospitalization were recorded. Predictive performance of each score was analyzed and compared using area of under curve.  Results: CISNE score showed a better performance both in solid malignancy with AUC of CISNE score (0.80 CI 95% 0.73-0.88, p = 0.00) compared to AUC of MASCC score (0.68; 95% CI 0.59 - 0,78, p = 0.00) and in hematologic malignancy with AUC of CISNE score (0.85; 95% CI 0.77 - 0.93, p = 0.00) and AUC MASCC score (0.65 ; 95% CI 0.54 - 0.76, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: CISNE score showed a better performance compared to MASCC score in predicting in-hospital complication in both solid and hematologic malignancy with cut-off point of 2.

The impact of new and emerging agents on outcomes for febrile neutropenia: addressing clinical gaps.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While chemotherapy treatment options for patients with solid and hematologic malignancies have dramatically improved over recent years, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) remain major barriers to delivering treatment at full doses and optimal timing. Despite concurrent advances in granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration, multiple barriers to the administration of and disparities in the access to these agents remain. The introduction of new, emerging agents, including biosimilars and novel therapies show promise in improving outcomes for CIN. RECENT FINDINGS: The introduction of biosimilar filgrastim products has improved access to G-CSF administration by driving marketplace competition and has reduced costs for both patients and healthcare systems without sacrificing efficacy. Emerging therapies to address similar issues include long-acting G-CSF products, efbemalenograstim alfa and eflapegrastin-xnst, as well as agents with novel mechanisms of action, plinabulin and trilaciclib. These agents have shown efficacy and cost-saving benefits in certain populations and disease groups. SUMMARY: Multiple emerging agents show promise in decreasing the burden of CIN. Use of these therapies will reduce access disparities and will improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Many ongoing trials are underway to evaluate the roles of these agents for more widespread use.

Clinical factors predicting return emergency department visits in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients.

BACKGROUND: Although chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common and life-threatening oncologic emergency, the characteristics and outcomes associated with return visits to the emergency department (ED) in these patients are uncertain. Hence, we aimed to investigate the predictive factors and clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-induced FN patients returning to the ED. METHOD: This single-center, retrospective observational study spanning 14 years included chemotherapy-induced FN patients who visited the ED and were discharged. The primary outcome was a return visit to the ED within five days. We conducted logistic regression analyses to evaluate the factors influencing ED return visit. RESULTS: This study included 1318 FN patients, 154 (12.1%) of whom revisited the ED within five days. Patients (53.3%) revisited the ED owing to persistent fever (56.5%), with no intensive care unit admission and only one mortality case who was discharged hopelessly. Multivariable analysis revealed that shock index >0.9 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.10), thrombocytopenia (<100 × 103/uL) (OR: 1.64, 95% CI, 1.11-2.42), and lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L (OR: 1.51, 95% CI, 0.99-2.25) were associated with an increased risk of a return visit to the ED, whereas being transferred into the ED from other hospitals (OR: 0.08; 95% CI, 0.005-0.38) was associated with a decreased risk of a return visit to the ED. CONCLUSION: High shock index, lactic acid, thrombocytopenia, and ED arrival type can predict return visits to the ED in chemotherapy-induced FN patients.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear. METHODS: This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia among breast Cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital: Risk and consequences.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors that may predispose breast cancer patients to Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and its associated complications for the years 2018 and 2020. CIN is an established complication of breast cancer treatment. Clinical Pharmacists can play an important role in the treatment of CIN through involvement in risk assessment to identify patients for oral antimicrobial therapy, drug therapy monitoring, and development of suitable guidelines or policies. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study was performed by collecting data of 72 breast cancer patients for the last two years from department of Medical Oncology in a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: The overall occurrence of CIN was 59.7% in our study population. Out of 72 patients studied, 43 patients were found to be neutropenic. Using Pearson Chi square test, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was associated with older age (over 60 y) (p < 0.038), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.050), tumour stage IIIa (p < 0.024), AC (p < 0.051) and taxane chemotherapy regimens (p < 0.041). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 37.28% of patients and the incidence of infection-related mortality [severe septicaemia] was 3.38%. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of clinical pharmacist must be brought into practice in our country for providing proper guidance to the patient on CIN and its complications. By identifying risk factors for neutropenia, the safe management of CIN may be possible in patients with breast cancer.

Management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with soft tissue or bone sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile neutropenia, an oncological complication related to myelosuppressive chemotherapy, can lead to unplanned hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, and changes in the oncological therapeutic plan. The present study aimed (1) to determine the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and (2) to evaluate its consequences for the oncological treatment of patients with soft tissue or bone sarcomas. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional and retrospective study (January 2018 to December 2019) carried out in a reference oncology hospital in the Brazilian public health system. Inpatients diagnosed with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, older than the age of 18 years, and treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were included in the study. RESULTS: Twenty-nine chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia events were identified, involving 25 patients. Among the febrile neutropenia events, 90% were grade 4, and 59% occurred during palliative chemotherapy. Among patients with febrile neutropenia, 31% had arterial hypertension or/and diabetes mellitus comorbidities, 34% had infectious skin sites, such as compression ulcers and tumor wounds, and 31% had infections with defined etiologic agents. Treatment of hospitalized patients was performed with cefepime in combinations or alone (97%) and filgrastim. The outcomes related to chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were chemotherapy dose reduction (31%), chemotherapy cycle delays (21%), chemotherapy treatment suspension (17%), deaths (7%), and other associated complications (10%). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis was prescribed in 72.41% of febrile neutropenia events. The frequency of febrile neutropenia concerning total chemotherapy cycles was 2.15%. CONCLUSION: Even with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis, an overall prevalence of 2.15% of febrile neutropenia associated with hospitalization was observed, causing negative outcomes in chemotherapy treatment of patients.

Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Febrile Neutropenia in the US: A Beast of Burden That Needs to Be Tamed?

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are common complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This review provides an up-to-date assessment of the patient and cost burden of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/FN in the US, and summarizes recommendations for FN prophylaxis, including the interim guidance that was recommended during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review indicates that neutropenia/FN place a significant burden on patients in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. Most patients with neutropenia/FN presenting to the emergency department will be hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 6, 8, and 10 days for elderly, pediatric, and adult patients, respectively. Reported in-hospital mortality rates for neutropenia/FN range from 0.4% to 3.0% for pediatric patients with cancer, 2.6% to 7.0% for adults with solid tumors, and 7.4% for adults with hematologic malignancies. Neutropenia/FN also place a significant cost burden on US healthcare systems, with average costs per neutropenia/FN hospitalization estimated to be up to $40 000 for adult patients and $65 000 for pediatric patients. Evidence-based guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), which have been shown to reduce FN incidence while improving chemotherapy dose delivery. Availability of biosimilars may improve costs of care. Efforts to decrease hospitalizations by optimizing outpatient care could reduce the burden of neutropenia/FN; this was particularly pertinent during the COVID-19 pandemic since avoidance of hospitalization was needed to reduce exposure to the virus, and resulted in the adaptation of recommendations to prevent FN, which expanded the indications for G-CSF and/or lowered the threshold of use to >10% risk of FN.

Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of same-day pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer.

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes.

Chemotherapy is intended to kill fast-growing cancer cells but can also kill immune cells that are needed to prevent infections. When too many immune cells are killed by chemotherapy, patients with cancer may experience febrile neutropenia, a serious condition that can lead to death in the most severe cases. To prevent this side effect of chemotherapy, a protein that helps certain immune cells to grow (pegfilgrastim) is administered on the day after chemotherapy. To avoid a second clinic visit the day after receiving chemotherapy, it has become common to administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Whether this approach is as effective and safe as next-day administration is currently unclear. This study from the University of Arizona Cancer Center showed that in patients with lung cancer who receive chemotherapy, administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy is a safe, effective method to prevent febrile neutropenia.

Supportive therapies in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and appropriate use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: a Delphi consensus statement.

PURPOSE: Data indicate that the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine practice is not consistent with guideline recommendations. The initiative "supportive care for febrile neutropenia prevention and appropriateness of G-CFS use" was undertaken to address the issue of inappropriate prescription of G-CSFs and to improve guideline adherence in the treatment of FN. METHODS: In a two-round Delphi procedure, 36 medical oncologists reviewed clinically relevant recommendations on risk assessment, the appropriate use of G-CSFs, and the prevention of FN based on available literature and individual clinical expertise. RESULTS: The consensus was reached on 16 out of 38 recommendations, which are backed by evidence from randomised clinical trials and routine clinical practice. The medical oncologists agreed that the severity of neutropenia depends on patients' characteristics and chemotherapy intensity, and therefore, the risk of severe neutropenia or FN should be assessed at each chemotherapy cycle so as to initiate prophylaxis with G-CSFs if required. The use of biosimilar G-CSFs, with similar efficacy and safety profiles to the originator biologic, has improved the availability and sustainability of cancer care. The timing of supportive therapy is crucial; for example, long-acting G-CSF should be administered 24-72 h after chemotherapy administration. Each biological agent has a recommended administration dose and duration, and it is important to follow these recommendations to avoid complications associated with under-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: It is hoped that these statements will help to increase adherence to guideline recommendations for appropriate G-CSF use and improve patient care.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study.

PURPOSE: Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients. RESULTS: A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment. CONCLUSION: The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

Real-world evaluation of supportive care using an electronic health record text-mining tool: G-CSF use in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening and chemotherapy dose-limiting adverse event. FN can be prevented with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Guidelines recommend primary G-CSF use for patients receiving either high (> 20%) FN risk (HR) chemotherapy, or intermediate (10-20%) FN risk (IR) chemotherapy if the overall risk with additional patient-related risk factors exceeds 20%. In this study, we applied an EHR text-mining tool for real-world G-CSF treatment evaluation in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Breast cancer patients receiving IR or HR chemotherapy treatments between January 2015 and February 2021 at LUMC, the Netherlands, were included. We retrospectively collected data from EHR with a text-mining tool and assessed G-CSF use, risk factors, and the FN and neutropenia (grades 3-4) and incidence. RESULTS: A total of 190 female patients were included, who received 77 HR and 113 IR treatments. In 88.3% of the HR regimens, G-CSF was administered; 7.3% of these patients developed FN vs. 33.3% without G-CSF. Although most IR regimen patients had ≥ 2 risk factors, only 4% received G-CSF, of which none developed neutropenia. However, without G-CSF, 11.9% developed FN and 31.2% severe neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Our text-mining study shows high G-CSF use among HR regimen patients, and low use among IR regimen patients, although most had ≥ 2 risk factors. Therefore, current practice is not completely in accordance with the guidelines. This shows the need for increased awareness and clarity regarding risk factors. Also, text-mining can effectively be implemented for the evaluation of patient care.

A Risk-Prediction Nomogram for Neutropenia or Febrile Neutropenia after Etoposide-Based Chemotherapy in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting the risk of neutropenia or febrile neutropenia (FN) in tumor patients in the first cycle of etoposide-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used an information system to monitor patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or solid tumors receiving an etoposide regimen in the first chemotherapy cycle in our hospital from 2009 to 2020. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify the influencing factors of patients with neutropenia or FN. Those factors were then used to develop a nomogram. RESULTS: A total of 1,554 patients were divided into the development group (n = 1,072) and validation group (n = 482). Variables used to predict neutropenia or FN were Karnofsky performance status (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-0.89, p < 0.01), metastatic sites ≥3 (OR = 6.33, 95% CI = 2.66-15.11, p < 0.01), comorbidity of heart disease (OR = 4.88, 95% CI = 1.74-13.67, p < 0.01), recent surgery (OR = 7.96, 95% CI = 1.96-32.36, p < 0.01), administration of alkylating agents (OR = 4.50, 95% CI = 1.10-18.48, p < 0.01), total bilirubin ≥25 µmol/L (OR = 11.42, 95% CI = 4.00-32.61, p < 0.01), and lymphocyte count <0.7 × 109/L (OR = 4.22, 95% CI = 2.00-9.75, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This model can aid the early identification and screening of the potential risk of neutropenia or FN in the first cycle of treatment for patients using etoposide-based chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020. RESULTS: We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

The Prognostic Utility of Lymphocyte-Based Measures and Ratios in Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Patients following Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Therapy.

Background and Objectives: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is the most widespread oncologic emergency with high morbidity and mortality rates. Herein we present a retrospective risk factor identification study to evaluate the prognostic role of lymphocyte-based measures and ratios in a cohort of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients following granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy. Materials and Methods: The electronic medical records at our center were utilized to identify patients with a first attack of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and were treated accordingly with G-CSF between January 2010 to December 2020. Patients' demographics and disease characteristics along with laboratory tests data were extracted. Prognosis-related indicators were the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at admission and the following 6 days besides the length of stay and mortality rate. Results: A total of 80 patients were enrolled, which were divided according to the absolute lymphocyte count at admission into two groups, the first includes lymphopenia patients (n = 55) and the other is the non-lymphopenia group (n = 25) with a cutoff point of 700 lymphocytes/µL. Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally insignificant among the two groups but the white blood cell count was higher in the non-lymphopenia group. ANC, neutrophils percentage and ANC difference in reference to admission among the two study groups were totally insignificant. The same insignificant pattern was observed in the length of stay and the mortality rate. Univariate analysis utilizing the ANC difference compared to the admission day as the dependent variable, revealed no predictability role in the first three days of follow up for any of the variables included. However, during the fourth day of follow up, both WBC (OR = 0.261; 95% CI: 0.075, 0.908; p = 0.035) and lymphocyte percentage (OR = 1.074; 95% CI: 1.012, 1.141; p = 0.019) were marginally significant, in which increasing WBC was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of ANC count increase, compared to the lymphocyte percentage which exhibited an increase in the likelihood. In comparison, sequential ANC difference models demonstrated lymphocyte percentage (OR = 0.961; 95% CI: 0.932, 0.991; p = 0.011) and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (OR = 7.436; 95% CI: 1.024, 54.020; p = 0.047) reduction and increment in the enhancement of ANC levels, respectively. The fifth day had WBC (OR = 0.790; 95% CI: 0.675, 0.925; p = 0.003) to be significantly decreasing the likelihood of ANC increment. Conclusions: we were unable to determine any concrete prognostic role of lymphocyte-related measures and ratios. It is plausible that several limitations could have influenced the results obtained, but as far as our analysis is concerned ALC role as a predictive factor for ANC changes remains questionable.

Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .