» Articles » PMID: 24166522

Cost Effectiveness of Primary Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis in Patients with Breast Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Effects of long-acting versus short-acting granulocyte colony stimulating factor after radiotherapy in gynecologic malignancies: a prospective observational cohort study.

Chen X, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, Li L BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1512.

PMID: 39696092 PMC: 11658528. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-13296-1.


Impact of primary prophylaxis by pegfilgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP.

Kim M, Ahn Y, Ahn H, Ha S, Oh H, Song J Ann Hematol. 2023; 102(11):3167-3175.

PMID: 37599323 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-023-05411-2.


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

van Laar S, Gombert-Handoko K, Wassenaar S, Kroep J, Guchelaar H, Zwaveling J Support Care Cancer. 2022; 30(11):9181-9189.

PMID: 36044088 PMC: 9633501. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07343-5.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of pegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving ramucirumab plus docetaxel in Japan.

Kondo Y, Tachi T, Sakakibara T, Kato J, Kato A, Mizuno T Support Care Cancer. 2022; 30(8):6775-6783.

PMID: 35524869 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07102-6.


Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Wu Q, Li Q, Zhang J, Luo Z, Zhou J, Chen J Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12:690874.

PMID: 34776940 PMC: 8586644. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.690874.