ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unplanned hospital presentations in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to explore opportunities for improving supportive care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Mapping supportive-care evidence for febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer chemotherapy: a bibliometric analysis of long-acting G-CSF prophylaxis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients treated for advanced-stage classical hodgkin lymphoma: successful outcomes from a multicenter cohort study.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Specific Recognition of Glycoproteins: Design Strategies and Application Prospects of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Long-acting lipegfilgrastim and antimicrobials as vigorous primary prophylaxis in bendamustine-treated patients with indolent B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a multicentric real-life experience.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Comparative efficacy of moxibustion in chemotherapy-induced leukopenia: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- Parallel Toxicities: A Comparative Analysis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Alopecia.Cancers · 2025Review
- Severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa Pneumonia in a Breast Cancer Patient Despite Pegfilgrastim Administration.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany.
methodsA Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.
resultsResults demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim.
conclusionsBiosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.