TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost Effectiveness of Primary Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis in Patients With Breast Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia
AU - Aarts, Maureen J.
AU - Grutters, Janneke P.
AU - Peters, Frank P. J.
AU - Mandigers, Caroline M.
AU - Dercksen, M. Wouter
AU - Stouthard, Jacqueline M.
AU - Nortier, Hans J.
AU - van Laarhoven, Hanneke W.
AU - van Warmerdam, Laurence J. C.
AU - van de Wouw, Agnes J.
AU - Jacobs, Esther M.
AU - Mattijssen, Vera
AU - van der Rijt, Carin C.
AU - Smilde, Tineke J.
AU - van der Velden, Annette W.
AU - Temizkan, Mehmet
AU - Batman, Erdogan
AU - Muller, Erik W.
AU - van Gastel, Saskia M.
AU - Joore, Manuela A.
AU - Borm, George F.
AU - Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C.
PY - 2013/12/1
Y1 - 2013/12/1
N2 - 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 Euro 20,658 (95% CI, Euro 20,049 to Euro 21,247) to Euro 17,168 (95% CI Euro 16,239 to Euro 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 Euro 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.
AB - 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 Euro 20,658 (95% CI, Euro 20,049 to Euro 21,247) to Euro 17,168 (95% CI Euro 16,239 to Euro 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 Euro 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.
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.3644
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.3644
M3 - Article
C2 - 24166522
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 31
SP - 4283
EP - 4289
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 34
ER -