Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
  • 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..
  • Article
  • Open Access

1 April 2014

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

,
,
,
,
,
and
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

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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.