Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.3281 on May 8 2006

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Timmer-Bonte, J. N.H. Articles by Tjan-Heijnen, V. C.G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Timmer-Bonte, J. N.H. Articles by Tjan-Heijnen, V. C.G. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Fever Lung Cancer Related Articles Related Editorial Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Primary Prophylaxis With Antibiotics in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Johanna N.H. Timmer-Bonte, Eddy M.M. Adang, Hans J.M. Smit, Bonne Biesma, Frank A. Wilschut, Gerben P. Bootsma, Theo M. de Boo, Vivianne C.G. Tjan-Heijnen

From the Departments of Medical Oncology, Medical Technology Assessment, Pulmonology, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Nijmegen Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem; Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch; and Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, the Netherlands

Address reprint requests to J.N.H. Timmer-Bonte, MD, 452 Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands; e-mail: J.Timmer{at}onco.umcn.nl

PURPOSE: Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis.

METHODS: Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented.

RESULTS: For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, –36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, –2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%.

CONCLUSION: Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

Supported by a research grant from the Dutch Healthcare Insurance Board (OG-99053).

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Related Editorial

• When the Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Is 20%, Prophylactic Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Is Clinically Effective, but Is It Cost-Effective?
  Jared R. Adams, Cara Angelotta, and Charles L. Bennett
  JCO 2006 24: 2975-2977 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. N.H. Timmer-Bonte, E. M.M. Adang, E. Termeer, J. L. Severens, and V. C.G. Tjan-Heijnen Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Secondary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis During Standard-Dose Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2008; 26(2): 290 - 296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Stinchcombe and M. A. Socinski Considerations for Second-Line Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Oncologist, January 1, 2008; 13(suppl_1): 28 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. H. Cullen, L. J. Billingham, C. H. Gaunt, and N. M. Steven Rational Selection of Patients for Antibacterial Prophylaxis After Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2007; 25(30): 4821 - 4828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. M. Kuderer, D. C. Dale, J. Crawford, and G. H. Lyman Impact of Primary Prophylaxis With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor on Febrile Neutropenia and Mortality in Adult Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2007; 25(21): 3158 - 3167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Ferretti and P. Papaldo Can the Addition of Prophylactic Filgrastim Be Considered Cost Effective in Early Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide? J. Clin. Oncol., December 10, 2006; 24(35): 5615 - 5616. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Adams, C. Angelotta, and C. L. Bennett When the Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Is 20%, Prophylactic Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Is Clinically Effective, but Is It Cost-Effective? J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2006; 24(19): 2975 - 2977. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Smith, J. Khatcheressian, G. H. Lyman, H. Ozer, J. O. Armitage, L. Balducci, C. L. Bennett, S. B. Cantor, J. Crawford, S. J. Cross, et al. 2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2006; 24(19): 3187 - 3205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]