European Journal of Cancer
Volume 46, Issue 13 , Pages 2389-2398, September 2010

Trends in G-CSF use in 990 patients after EORTC and ASCO guidelines

  • C. Falandry

      Affiliations

    • Medical Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Medical Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 165, Chemin du Grand Revoyet, 69495 Pierre Bénite cedex, France. Tel.: +33 478864318; fax: +33 478864319.
  • ,
  • M. Campone

      Affiliations

    • Institut Régional du Cancer Nantes Atlantique, CLCC René Gauducheau, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie, INSERM 892, Nantes, Saint Herblain, France
  • ,
  • G. Cartron

      Affiliations

    • Hematology Department, CHU Montpellier, UMR-CNRS5235, Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France
  • ,
  • D. Guerin

      Affiliations

    • A+A Healthcare Marketing Research, Lyon, France
  • ,
  • G. Freyer

      Affiliations

    • Medical Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France

Received 6 February 2010; received in revised form 26 April 2010; accepted 29 April 2010. published online 07 June 2010.

Abstract 

Background

Although international guidelines have standardised conditions for G-CSF administration, real practice seems to vary.

Patients and methods

A large survey was undertaken in France following a three-step method. Data concerning 990 patients in seven main indications were collected prospectively and analysed for their compliance with international guidelines.

Results

G-CSF prescription rate varied from 81% in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), 55% in ovarian, 44% in breast and 21% in colorectal cancer. The main criteria for G-CSF administration were a chemotherapy regimen with a high risk of neutropaenia (65%) and associated risk factors (51%). Public hospital practitioners prescribed G-CSF more frequently as primary prophylaxis, whereas prescriptions of recently graduated practitioners (⩽5years) and former ones (⩾16years) were often proposed as secondary prophylaxis or as G-CSF therapy, i.e. during ongoing neutropaenia. In prophylactic settings, administration schedules were highly variable depending on molecules, with a first day of administration between days 1 and 3 after chemotherapy in 66%, but before the end of the chemotherapy infusion in 13% of the cases. Concerning lenograstim (38% of prescriptions) and filgrastim (20%), the mean treatment duration was 5.5days, significantly shorter than in 1999 (7.8days).

Conclusion

G-CSF prescription was mainly in compliance with international guidelines. However, some too early administrations during chemotherapy are at risk of increased myelosuppression and should be more clearly disadvised in next international guidelines.

Keywords: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, Guideline, Decision making, Criteria

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0959-8049(10)00372-2

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.031

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 46, Issue 13 , Pages 2389-2398, September 2010