Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37728795›Full record

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.

Matti S Aapro, Stephen Chaplin, Paul Cornes, Sebastian Howe, Hartmut Link, Natalia Koptelova, Andrea Mehl, Mario Di Palma, Bridgette Kanz Schroader, Robert Terkola

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.

Matti S AaproGenolier Cancer Center, Genolier, Switzerland.
Stephen ChaplinXcenda UK, York, UK.
Paul CornesComparative Outcomes Group, Bristol, UK.
Sebastian HoweSandoz International GmbH, Industriestr. 18, D-83607, Holzkirchen, Germany. sebastian.howe@sandoz.com.
Hartmut LinkPrivate Practice Hematology Oncology Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Natalia KoptelovaSandoz International GmbH, Industriestr. 18, D-83607, Holzkirchen, Germany.
Andrea MehlSandoz International GmbH, Industriestr. 18, D-83607, Holzkirchen, Germany.
Mario Di PalmaGustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Bridgette Kanz SchroaderXcenda LLC, a Cencora company, Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Robert TerkolaUniversity Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Clinique de Genolier · CHHealth Economics and Outcomes Research (United Kingdom) · GBInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRSanden (Japan) · JPUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Kaiserslautern · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFebrile NeutropeniaLung NeoplasmsLymphoma, Non-HodgkinCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFilgrastimGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocytesHumansBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsFilgrastimGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorBiosimilarCost-effectivenessFebrile neutropeniaFilgrastimPegfilgrastim

Identifiers

PMID37728795
PMCPMC10511548
OpenAlexW4386878385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.