Next Article in Journal
Patient preferences for stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia
Previous Article in Journal
Toward Successful Migration to Computerized Physician Order Entry for Chemotherapy
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Use of Granulocyte Colony–Stimulating Factors in a Canadian Outpatient Setting

1
Peel Regional Cancer Centre, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, ON, Canada
2
Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic (HOPE) Research Centre, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
3
OptumInsight, Burlington, ON, Canada
4
Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
5
‖Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21(2), 229-240; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1575
Submission received: 3 January 2014 / Revised: 5 February 2014 / Accepted: 6 March 2014 / Published: 1 April 2014

Abstract

Background: Data on real-life utilization of granulocyte colony– stimulating factors (g-csfs) in Canada are limited. The objective of the present study was to describe the reasons for, and the patterns of, g-csf use in selected outpatient oncology clinics in Ontario and Quebec. Methods: In a retrospective longitudinal cohort study, a review of medical records from 9 Canadian oncology clinics identified patients being prescribed filgrastim (fil) and pegfilgrastim (peg). Patient characteristics, reasons for g-csf use, and treatment patterns were descriptively analyzed. Results: Medical records of 395 patients initiating g-csf therapy between January 2008 and January 2009 were included. Of this population, 80% were women, and breast cancer was the predominant diagnosis (59%). The most commonly prescribed g-csf was fil (56% in Ontario and 98% in Quebec). The most frequent reason for g-csf use was primary prophylaxis (42% for both fil and peg), followed by secondary prophylaxis (37% fil, 41% peg). Those proportions varied by tumour type and chemotherapy regimen. Delayed g-csf administration (more than 1 day after the end of chemotherapy) was frequently observed for fil, but rarely reported for peg, and that finding was consistent across tumours and concurrent chemotherapy regimens. Conclusions: The use of g-csf varies with the malignancy type and the provincial health care setting. The most commonly prescribed g-csf agent was fil, and most first g-csf prescriptions were for primary prophylaxis. Delays were frequently observed for patients receiving fil, but were rarely reported for those receiving peg.
Keywords: neutropenia; prophylaxis; colony-stimulating factors; outcomes; pegfilgrastim; filgrastim neutropenia; prophylaxis; colony-stimulating factors; outcomes; pegfilgrastim; filgrastim

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fine, S.; Koo, M.; Gill, T.; Marin, M.; Poulin–Costello, M.; Barron, R.; Mittmann, N. The Use of Granulocyte Colony–Stimulating Factors in a Canadian Outpatient Setting. Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21, 229-240. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1575

AMA Style

Fine S, Koo M, Gill T, Marin M, Poulin–Costello M, Barron R, Mittmann N. The Use of Granulocyte Colony–Stimulating Factors in a Canadian Outpatient Setting. Current Oncology. 2014; 21(2):229-240. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1575

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fine, S., M. Koo, T. Gill, M. Marin, M. Poulin–Costello, R. Barron, and N. Mittmann. 2014. "The Use of Granulocyte Colony–Stimulating Factors in a Canadian Outpatient Setting" Current Oncology 21, no. 2: 229-240. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1575

APA Style

Fine, S., Koo, M., Gill, T., Marin, M., Poulin–Costello, M., Barron, R., & Mittmann, N. (2014). The Use of Granulocyte Colony–Stimulating Factors in a Canadian Outpatient Setting. Current Oncology, 21(2), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1575

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop