Clinical Outcomes and Cost‐effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia During Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer |
| |
| Authors: | Joanne L. Yu MD PhD Kelvin Chan MD MSc Michael Kurin MD MA Mark Pasetka PharmD Alex Kiss PhD Srikala S. Sridhar MD MSc Ellen Warner MD MSc |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre Pharmacy, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada;4. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used breast cancer adjuvant regimen. We sought to compare the rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between patients receiving no primary prophylaxis (PP) and those receiving PP with either granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) or antibiotics. We also analyzed cost‐effectiveness of TC with and without either G‐CSF or antibiotics. Charts were reviewed of all 340 patients who received adjuvant TC between January 2008 and December 2012 at two major cancer centers. Rates of FN in the three groups – no PP, PP with G‐CSF and PP with antibiotics were compared. A Markov model was constructed comparing cost‐effectiveness of PP with G‐CSF, PP with antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis (SP) with G‐CSF after an episode of FN in a previous cycle. Costs were based on actual resource utilization and supplemented by the published literature, adjusted to 2012 Canadian dollars. Of the 73 (21%) patients who did not receive any PP, 23 (32%) of patients developed FN. Of the 192 (57%) patients receiving PP with G‐CSF alone, only two (1%; p < 0.0001) developed FN; and of the 53 (16%) receiving PP with antibiotics alone, six (11%; p < 0.01) developed FN. From a cost‐standpoint, PP with G‐CSF was less cost‐effective than PP with antibiotics. The rate of FN with TC chemotherapy exceeds 30%, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend PP with G‐CSF in this situation. PP with antibiotics is more cost‐effective, and is a reasonable option in resource‐limited settings or for patients who decline or do not tolerate G‐CSF. |
| |
| Keywords: | adjuvant chemotherapy breast cancer cost‐effectiveness febrile neutropenia primary prophylaxis |
|
|
