Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors—a questionnaire study

  • Research
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations.

Methods

In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic).

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients.

Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient’s background.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patel K, West HJ (2017) Febrile neutropenia. JAMA. Oncol 3(12):1751

    Google Scholar 

  2. Punnapuzha S, Edemobi PK, Elmoheen A (2023) Febrile Neutropenia. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing

  3. Ropka ME, Padilla G (2007) Assessment of neutropenia-related quality of life in a clinical setting. Oncol Nurs Forum 34(2):403–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weycker D, Li X, Edelsberg J, Barron R, Kartashov A, Xu H et al (2015) Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic solid tumors. J Oncol Pract 11(1):47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper KL, Madan J, Whyte S, Stevenson MD, Akehurst RL (2011) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 11:404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, Carson KR, Crawford J, Cross SJ et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33(28):3199–3212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N et al (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 47(1):8–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crawford J, Becker PS, Armitage JO, Blayney DW, Chavez J, Curtin P et al (2017) Myeloid growth factors, version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15(12):1520–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M et al (2016) Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol 27(suppl 5):v111–v118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths EA, Roy V, Alwan L, Bachiashvili K, Baird J, Cool R et al (2022) NCCN guidelines(R) insights: hematopoietic growth factors, Version 1.2022. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20(5):436–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly S, Wheatley D (2009) Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 1(Suppl 1)):S6-10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Barnes G, Pathak A, Schwartzberg L (2014) G-CSF utilization rate and prescribing patterns in United States: associations between physician and patient factors and GCSF use. Cancer Med 3(6):1477–1484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Link H, Nietsch J, Kerkmann M, Ortner P, Supportive Care Group of the German Cancer S (2016) Adherence to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guidelines to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy–a representative sample survey in Germany. Support Care Cancer 24(1):367–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weycker D, Hackett J, Edelsberg JS, Oster G, Glass AG (2006) Are shorter courses of filgrastim prophylaxis associated with increased risk of hospitalization? Ann Pharmacother 40(3):402–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scotte F, Simon H, Laplaige P, Antoine EC, Spasojevic C, Texier N et al (2021) Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment. BMJ Support Palliat Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003082

  16. Borget I, Antoun S, Chachaty E, Gachot B, Alibay A, Di Palma M et al (2014) Modalities of management of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the oncology emergency unit of Gustave-Roussy and their related costs. Bull Cancer 101(10):925–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gebremariam GT, Fentie AM, Beyene K, Sander B, Gebretekle GB (2022) Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 22(1):1600

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ludwig H, Bokemeyer C, Aapro M, Boccadoro M, Gascon P, Denhaerynck K et al (2019) Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in solid tumors versus hematological malignancies: MONITOR-GCSF study. Future Oncol 15(8):897–907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aapro M, Krendyukov A, Hobel N, Gascon P (2019) Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving biosimilar filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropaenia: results from the MONITOR-GCSF study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 28(4):e13034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Crawford J, Dale DC, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, Wolff D et al (2008) Risk and timing of neutropenic events in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: the results of a prospective nationwide study of oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 6(2):109–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M (2000) Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 283(13):1715–1722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Jain S, Hansen J, Spell M et al (2004) Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med 141(10):771–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Petrelli F, Ardito R, Borgonovo K, Lonati V, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M et al (2018) Haematological toxicities with immunotherapy in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 103:7–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Buske C, Dreyling M, Alvarez-Larran A, Apperley J, Arcaini L, Besson C et al (2022) Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus. ESMO Open 7(2):100403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Aapro M, Lyman GH, Bokemeyer C, Rapoport BL, Mathieson N, Koptelova N et al (2021) Supportive care in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. ESMO Open 6(1):100038

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This survey has been sponsored by Viatris.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Patient Pathway Department, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France

    Florian Scotté

  2. Gastrointestinal Oncology Department, Hôpital Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France

    Pascal Artru

  3. Oncology Department, American Hospital of Paris, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France

    Mahasti Saghatchian

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

    Mahasti Saghatchian

  5. Pneumology Department, CHI Créteil, Créteil, France

    Christos Chouaid

  6. Inserm U955, UPEC, IMRB, Créteil, France

    Christos Chouaid

Authors
  1. Florian Scotté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pascal Artru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahasti Saghatchian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christos Chouaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Florian Scotté. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Scotté.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The data analyzed for this study were issued from conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange, and therefore, no ethical approval was required. All research performed was in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Participating study centers obtained ethical approval from their respective Ethics Committee.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Florian Scotté: Leo Pharma, Pierre Fabre Oncology, MSD, AMGEN, Helsinn, BMS, Pfizer, Thermofisher, Alliance Healthcare, Biogaran, Sandoz, Sanofi, Pharmanovia, Viatris. Pascal Artru: Servier, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Viatris, Bayer, Baxter. Mahasti Saghatchian: Astra Zeneca, BMS, Daiichi, Eisai, Myriad Genetics, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Viatris, Roche, Sanofi. Christos Chouaid: Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, Viatris, Chugai, Amgen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scotté, F., Artru, P., Saghatchian, M. et al. Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors—a questionnaire study. Support Care Cancer 32, 347 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08524-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08524-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation