How oncologists adhere to evidence-based G-CSF-guidelines to prevent febrile neutropenia: A sample survey in hospitals and practices in Germany.

Authors

Hartmut Link

Hartmut Link

Deptartment Hematology, Oncology, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany

Hartmut Link , Josef Nietsch , Markus Kerkmann , Petra Angelika Ortner

Organizations

Deptartment Hematology, Oncology, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany, MMF GmbH, Dortmund, Germany, Pomme-med, München, Germany

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Primary G-CSF prophylaxis after chemotherapy is recommended in evidence based guidelines (GL), if the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is high (≥20%), or intermediate (≥ 10% - 20%) in case of risk factors. The aim was to evaluate, if G-CSF is used as proposed by GL, to identify determinants of GL implementation and adherence. Methods: The sample size was calculated at 2% of the incidence of malignant lymphoma, breast and lung cancer in Germany. Pts who had received 3-9 cycles of chemotherapy with a FN risk ≥10% between 5/2011 to 4/2012 were documented retrospectively. Results: 286 lymphoma, 666 lung cancer and 976 breast cancer pts were collected from 87 hospitals and 59 oncology practices with 195 physicians participating. Adherence to GL was higher in physicians up to 10 than over 10 years of experience. Conclusions: The adherence to and acceptance of GL for G-CSF may not be sufficient. Patient risk factors are underestimated therefore resulting in a possible underuse of G-CSF. Physicians may underestimate FN risk in pts who have an intermediate risk of FN and they overestimate their adherence to the GL.

Lymphoma pts
%
Lung cancer pts
%
Breast cancer pts
%
Comorbidity 18,2 39,2 14,8
Adherence to GL FN high-risk chemotherapy
1st/2nd/3rd cycles
82,4/ 77,8/ 82,9 11,1/ 13,3/ 15,5 72,6/ 77,4/ 78,3
FN intermediate risk chemotherapy
1st/2nd/3rd cycles
71,2/ 67,9/ 70,8 26,8/ 29,3/ 31,2 69,3/ 69,9/ 71,5
Reasons not to use G-CSF in 1st cycle of
high-risk chemotherapy
No additional risk factors for FN 51,9 39,5 65,1
Individual decision 33,3 21,1 22,1
FN-risk low by own experience 14,8 15,7 24,4
G-CSF as secondary prophylaxis 11,1 19,5 12,8
G-CSF only in FN-risk ≥ 40% 11,1 1,1 15,1
Institutions' decision 3,7 9,7 8,1
Reasons not to use G-CSF in 1st cycle of
intermediate-risk chemotherapy
No additional risk factors for FN 44,6 51,6 64,7
Individual decision 38,5 4,9 18,3
FN-risk low by own experience 18,5 21,0 29,7
G-CSF as secondary prophylaxis 9,2 14,2 16,3
G-CSF only in FN-risk ≥ 40% 1,5 1,4 8,0
Institutions' decision 10,8 9,6 6,7
In principle no G-CSF 7,7 16,4 5,6
Chemotherapy cycles %
Physicians compliance with the EORTC G-CSF GL in high/intermediate FN-risk 84,2/68,9 13,9/27,3 76,3/67,6

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Health Services Research

Track

Health Services Research

Sub Track

Outcomes and Quality of Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 6591)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.6591

Abstract #

6591

Poster Bd #

17G

Abstract Disclosures