Supportive care in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cancer care has been profoundly impacted by the global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19), resulting in unprecedented challenges. Supportive care is an essential component of cancer treatment, seeking to prevent and manage chemotherapy complications such as febrile neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia/bleeding, thromboembolic events and nausea/vomiting, all of which are common causes of hospitalisation. These adverse events are an essential consideration under routine patient management, but particularly so during a pandemic, a setting in which clinicians aim to minimise patients' risk of infection and need for hospital visits. Professional medical oncology societies have been providing updated guidelines to support health care professionals with the management, treatment and supportive care needs of their patients with cancer under the threat of COVID-19. This paper aims to review the recommendations made by the most prominent medical oncology societies for devising and modifying supportive care strategies during the pandemic.The Global Organisationhttps://www.esmoopen.comam2022Immunolog

A prospective study of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network. Interpretation of study results in light of NCAG/NCEPOD findings

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is a medical emergency complicating the treatment of many cancer patients. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, as well as impacting on healthcare resources. METHODS: A prospective study of all cases of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network was conducted over a 4-month period. Factors including demographics, treatment history, management of febrile neutropenia and outcome were recorded. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results reflect those of the recent National Chemotherapy Advisory Group (NCEPOD, 2008)/National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death reports (NCAG, 2009) and highlight the need for network-wide c inical care pathways to improve outcomes in this area, British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 407-412. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606059 www.bjcancer.com Published online 21 December 2010 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). Conclusions: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim

Cost-effectiveness of febrile neutropenia prevention with primary versus secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review

The adoption of primary (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN), with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in breast cancer (BC) could be affected by its “value for money”. This systematic review examined (i) cost-effectiveness of PP versus SP, (ii) FN threshold at which PP is cost-effective including the guidelines 20 % threshold and (iii) potential impact of G-CSF efficacy assumptions on outcomes. The systematic review identified all cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (CEA/CUA) involving PP versus SP G-CSF for AC in BC that met predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five relevant CEA/CUA were identified. These CEA/CUA examined different AC regimens (TAC = 2; FEC-D = 1; TC = 2) and G-CSF formulations (filgrastim “F” = 4; pegfilgrastim “P” = 4) with varying baseline FN—risk (range 22–32 %), mortality (range 1.4–6.0 %) and utility (range 0.33–0.47). The potential G-CSF benefit, including FN risk reduction with P versus F, varied among models. Overall, relative to SP, PP was not associated with good value for money, as per commonly utilized CE thresholds, at the baseline FN rates examined, including the consensus 20 % FN threshold, in most of these studies. The value for money associated with PP versus SP was primarily dependent on G-CSF benefit assumptions including reduced FN mortality and improved BC survival. PP G-CSF for FN prevention in BC patients undergoing AC may not be a cost-effective strategy at the guidelines 20 % FN threshold

Impact of febrile neutropenia on R-CHOP chemotherapy delivery and hospitalizations among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

PURPOSE: This analysis from an observational study of clinical practice describes the impact of febrile neutropenia (FN) on chemotherapy delivery and hospitalizations. METHODS: Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) scheduled to receive ≥3 cycles of 2- or 3-weekly CHOP with rituximab (R-CHOP-14/21) were eligible. Primary outcome was incidence of FN. RESULTS:FN data were available for 409 patients receiving R-CHOP-14 and 702 patients receiving R-CHOP-21. FN incidence was R-CHOP-14, 20% (81/409) and R-CHOP-21, 19% (133/702). Rates of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor were R-CHOP-14, 84% (345/409) and R-CHOP-21, 36% (252/702). A large number of patients experienced their first FN episode in cycle 1 (R-CHOP-14, 24/81 [30%]; R-CHOP-21, 63/133 [47%]). Multiple risk factors (≥2) for FN were more frequent in patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 60/81 [74%] versus 179/328 [55%]; R-CHOP-21, 98/133 [74%] versus 339/569 [60%]). A similar trend was observed for unplanned hospitalizations (R-CHOP-14, 63/81 [78%] versus 68/328 [21%]; R-CHOP-21, 105/133 [79%] versus 100/569 [18%]). Achievement of chemotherapy relative dose intensity ≥90% was lower among patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 30/81 [37%] versus 234/328 [71%]; R-CHOP-21, 83/133 [62%] versus 434/569 [76%]). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP-14 or R-CHOP-21, patients with an event of FN were more likely to experience suboptimal chemotherapy delivery and increased incidence of unplanned hospitalizations than those without FN. FN-related hospitalizations are likely to impact chemotherapy delivery and to incur substantial costs

Risk of venous thromboembolism in people with lung cancer: a cohort study using linked UK healthcare data

Background: Venous thromboembolism is a potentially preventable cause of death in people with lung cancer. Identification of those most at risk and high risk periods may provide the opportunity for better targeted intervention. Methods: We conducted a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry data. Our cohort comprised 10,598 people with lung cancer diagnosed between 1997 and 2006 with follow-up continuing to the end of 2010. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine which demographic, tumour and treatment-related factors (time-varying effects of chemotherapy and surgery) independently affected VTE risk. We also determined the effect of a VTE diagnosis on the survival of people with lung cancer. Results: People with lung cancer had an overall VTE incidence of 39.2 per 1000 person years (95% confidence Interval (CI), 35.4-43.5), though rates varied depending on the patient group and treatment course. Independent factors associated with increased VTE risk were: metastatic disease (hazard ratio (HR)=1.9, CI 1.2, 3.0 vs. local disease); adenocarcinoma sub-type (HR =2.0, CI 1.5, 2.7, vs. squamous cell; chemotherapy administration, (HR=2.1, CI 1.4, 3.0 vs. outside chemotherapy courses); and diagnosis via emergency hospital admission (HR=1.7, CI 1.2-2.3 vs. other routes to diagnosis). Patients with VTE had an approximately 50% higher risk of mortality than those without VTE. Conclusions: People with lung cancer have especially high risk of VTE if they have advanced disease, adenocarcinoma, or are undergoing chemotherapy. Presence of VTE is an independent risk factor for death

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is ≥20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from ‘real-world’ clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications

The potential benefits of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer patients

Cancer patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism due to a range of factors directly related to their disease and its treatment. Given the high incidence of post-surgical venous thromboembolism in cancer patients and the poor outcomes associated with its development, thromboprophylaxis is warranted. A number of evidence-based guidelines delineate anticoagulation regimens for venous thromboembolism treatment, primary and secondary prophylaxis, and long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients. However, many give equal weight to several different drugs and do not make specific recommendations regarding duration of therapy. In terms of their efficacy and safety profiles, practicality of use, and cost-effectiveness the low-molecular-weight heparins are at least comparable to, and offer several advantages over, other available antithrombotics in cancer patients. In addition, data are emerging that the antithrombotics, and particularly low-molecular-weight heparins, may exert an antitumor effect which could contribute to improved survival in cancer patients when given for long-term prophylaxis. Such findings reinforce the importance of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin in cancer patients