The myeloid growth factors G-CSF and GM-CSF have had an impact on the supportive care of cancer patients as well as on the strategies utilized in chemotherapy dose intensification. Therapy with these factors has not been associated with improvements in survival, and hence an examination of their effects on economic outcomes is central to rational decision making regarding their use. Erythropoietin therapy has been shown to decrease transfusion requirements in anemic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and to improve the quality of life in responding patients. The available data on the economic outcomes associated with the use of these three factors in oncology practice are reviewed.
Escalating health care costs mandate that a rigorous assessment of economic outcomes be included in the overall evaluation of a new technology. At the same time, the effect of a new treatment on the quality of life of cancer patients is increasingly recognized as a legitimate goal of treatment and an important outcome to consider in the overall assessment of the costs and benefits of a new therapy. Because it is likely that, with time, the results of these two less traditional outcome analyses in oncology will increasingly guide clinical decision making, it is important that they accurately reflect the true impact of the technology in community practice and that clinicians fully understand the methodologies involved in these analyses and their findings.
The hematopoietic growth factors are a class of glycoproteins involved in the regulation of hematopoiesis and mature effector cell function. The recombinant human forms of three of these factors-granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, filgrastim, Neupogen), yeast-derived granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF, sargramostim, Leukine), and erythropoietin (EPO, epoetin alfa, Epogen, Procrit)-have shown sufficient efficacy in clinical trials to be approved for community use in oncology practice in the United States. While all three factors have shown significant efficacy in the supportive care of oncology patients in various clinical settings, none has been shown to increase survival or tumor response rates; hence, economic and quality of life outcome assessments have become particularly important components of the overall assessment of these new technologies.
Unfortunately, there are relatively few directly measured data available regarding the economic or quality of life impacts of any of these factors, and the available analyses are based largely upon assumptions drawn from the clinical effects measured directly in randomized clinical trials. For G-CSF and GM-CSF, some directly measured data regarding impact on health care charges are available, but few data are available regarding the effects of these factors on the quality of life of the cancer patient. For EPO the situation is reversed: The impacts of this factor on the quality of life of the cancer patient have been directly measured in both phase III and phase IV studies, but there are no published data regarding the economic impact of the use of this factor in oncology practice.
In approaching the study of the economic outcomes of relatively expensive new drugs such as the hematopoietic growth factors, it is important to state clearly the perspective and scope of the analysis. While cost studies focused on a particular component of the health care system, such as the hospital pharmacy, are important for budgeting purposes, the results of these studies cannot be used to estimate the true cost impact of the new technology or to support responsible clinical decision making. For these purposes, the perspective of the cost analysis should be the health care system or society as a whole, and the scope of the analysis should include all the costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the new therapy, including the treatment of any drug-related toxicities and all of the direct and indirect costs that the new therapy eliminates.
Studies such as these, which compare the health care costs associated with two alternative approaches to treatment, are termed cost-minimization studies, and are typically utilized when the two approaches yield equivalent clinical outcomes such as tumor response rates and survival. If a cost-minimization analysis shows that the new therapy is associated with increased overall costs, decisions regarding its use will then depend upon which outcomes, if any, are improved. In these broader scope analyses, termed cost-benefit studies, the increased costs associated with the new treatment are balanced against improvements in nonclinical outcomes such as improved quality of life, improved functional status, and decreased indirect costs, including lost days from work.
The hematopoietic growth factors are unique new technologies in that they are applied to a broad spectrum of patients at varying risks for the complications they may prevent, such as febrile neutropenia, prolonged hospitalization, and red blood cell transfusions. These complications have associated costs, and the initial question about economic impact focuses on to what extent the savings associated with preventing these complications offset the cost of the growth factor. These cost offsets will depend, in part, upon the risk of the prevented complication in that subset of patients.
Figure 1 presents the results of a hypothetical cost-minimization study for a hematopoietic growth factor. In this example, as the risk of a preventable complication, such as severe anemia or febrile neutropenia, increases (as the magnitude of the efficiency variable rises), the efficiency of the use of the factor increases and the cost offsets associated with its use increase. At the threshold value of the efficiency variable, these offsets fully cover the cost of the factor, and at higher values, the use of the factor becomes cost saving.
Cost-minimization studies such as these are an important first step in the economic evaluation of the growth factor. They provide two useful pieces of information: First, these studies suggest that in select subgroups of patients, the use of the growth factor can be justified on the basis of direct cost savings alone. Second, they provide estimates of the magnitude of the increase in direct health care expenditures associated with growth factor therapy in the remaining subgroups of patients. These estimates can be used in future cost-benefit analyses that take into account any additional benefits of therapy with the growth factor, such as improved quality of life or decreased indirect costs to the health care system or society.
This paper will review the published data regarding the economic impacts of the hematopoietic growth factors in oncology practice. It will include a brief description of the seminal randomized clinical trials, with an emphasis on their implications for economic analyses, followed by a synopsis of the available cost-minimization and quality of life studies of the use of these factors in the treatment of cancer. Finally, this paper will summarize our current understanding of the cost-benefit balance for these factors and point out gaps in the data where further studies are needed for a more mature assessment of the impact of these agents.
Any cost assessment of hematopoietic growth factors must begin with a review of the state of knowledge regarding the technical aspects of their use, such as dose and schedule, clinical efficacy, and toxicities. For obvious reasons, the review should focus on randomized, controlled clinical trials, to ensure that any effects attributed to the growth factors are actually associated with their use. As will be seen, randomized clinical trials designed to demonstrate clinical efficacy usually do not define the optimal cost-effective use. Still, these studies are a necessary and important starting point for economic analyses.
The Myeloid Growth Factors in Cancer Treatment
There are three distinct rationales for the use of myeloid growth factors in the care of the cancer patient. The first is as part of supportive care during chemotherapy given at standard doses. In this approach, the goal of growth factor therapy is to decrease the duration or severity of neutropenia and thereby decrease the incidence of serious infections. In studies done to date, the risk of infections has been estimated by measuring the incidence of febrile neutropenia. While much remains to be learned about this supportive care application, it is best characterized from both a clinical and a cost standpoint.
The second rationale is the facilitation of chemotherapy dose intensification, with or without the use of autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells. In this approach, the goal of growth factor therapy is to increase the dose intensity of the administered chemotherapy and thereby improve tumor outcomes. Because the efficacy of dose intensification in improving tumor outcomes is likely to vary with tumor type and stage of disease, and because the demonstration of improvement in survival requires large studies of long duration that have not yet been completed, this is the most difficult application of hematopoietic growth factors to fully analyze from a cost-benefit standpoint.
The third rationale is the treatment of established infection in patients who are neutropenic following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this approach, the goal of growth factor therapy is to decrease the duration of febrile neutropenia and, hence, to decrease the cost of caring for these patients. The appropriate clinical trial, and type and scope of cost analysis, depends upon the rationale and goals of myeloid growth factor therapy. Table 1 lists the three rationales for myeloid growth factor therapy and their implications for clinical trials and cost analyses.
1. Antman KS, Griffin JD, Elias A, et al: Effect of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. N Engl J Med 319:593-598, 1988.
2. Gabrilove JL, Jakubowski A, Scher H, et al: Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med 318:1414-1422, 1988.
3. Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, et al: Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 325:164-170, 1991.
4. Trillet-Lenoir V, Green J, Manegold C, et al: Recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 29A:319-324, 1993.
5. Hamm J, Schiller JH, Cuffie C, et al: Dose-ranging study of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 12:2667-2676, 1994.
6. Bajorin DF, Nichols CR, Schmoll HJ, et al: Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as an adjunct to conventional-dose ifosfamide-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced or relapsed germ cell tumors: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 13:79-86, 1995.
7. Nemunaitis J, Rabinowe SN, Singer JW, et al: Recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after autologous bone marrow transplantation for lymphoid cancer. N Engl J Med 324:1773-1778, 1991.
8. O'Day SJ, Rabinowe SN, Neuberg D, et al: A phase II study of continuous infusion recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as an adjunct to autologous bone marrow transplantation for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in first remission. Blood 83:2707-2714, 1994.
9. Sheridan WP, Morstyn G, Wolf M, et al: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and neutrophil recovery after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. Lancet 2:891-895, 1989.
10. Stahel RA, Jost LM, Cerny T, et al: Randomized study of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation for high-risk lymphoid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 12:1931-1938, 1994.
11. Elias AD, Ayash L, Anderson KC, et al: Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells by chemotherapy and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor for hematologic support after high-dose intensification for breast cancer. Blood 79:3036-3044, 1992.
12. Tepler I, Cannistra SA, Frei ED, et al: Use of peripheral-blood progenitor cells abrogates the myelotoxicity of repetitive outpatient high-dose carboplatin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 11:1583-1591, 1993.
13. Tricot G, Jagannath S, Vesole D, et al: Peripheral blood stem cell transplants for multiple myeloma: Identification of favorable variables for rapid engraftment in 225 patients. Blood 85:588-596, 1995.
14. Bishop MR, Anderson JR, Jackson JD, et al: High-dose therapy and peripheral blood
progenitor cell transplantation: Effects of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on the autograft. Blood 83:610-616, 1994.
15. Sheridan WP, Begley CG, Juttner CA, et al: Effect of peripheral-blood progenitor cells mobilised by filgrastim (G-CSF) on platelet recovery after high-dose chemotherapy. Lancet 339:640-644, 1992.
16. Chao NJ, Schriber JR, Grimes K, et al: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor "mobilized" peripheral blood progenitor cells accelerate granulocyte and platelet recovery after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood 81:2031-2035, 1993.
17. Bensinger WI, Longin K, Appelbaum F, et al: Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) collected after recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF): An analysis of factors correlating with the tempo of engraftment after transplantation. Br J Haematol 87:825-831, 1994.
18. Nademanee A, Sniecinski I, Schmidt GM, et al: High-dose therapy followed by autologous peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation for patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using unprimed and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral-blood stem cells. J Clin Oncol 12:2176-2186, 1994.
19. Glaspy J, Chap L, Waisman J, et al: High dose chemotherapy with thiotepa, mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide (TMC) with autologous progenitor cell support in the treatment of breast cancer. Adv Oncol (in press), 1995.
20. Haas R, Moos M, Karcher A, et al: Sequential high-dose therapy with peripheral-blood progenitor-cell support in low-grade NHL. J Clin Oncol 12:1685-1692, 1994.
21. Kanold J, Rapatel C, Berger M, et al: Use of G-CSF alone to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for collection from children. Br J Haematol 88:633-635, 1994.
22. Peters WP, Rosner G, Ross M, et al: Comparative effects of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on priming peripheral blood progenitor cells for use with autologous bone marrow after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood 81:1709-1719, 1993.
23. Jones HM, Jones SA, Watts MJ, et al: Development of a simplified single-apheresis approach for peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation in previously treated patients with lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 12:1693-1702, 1994.
24. Dunlop DJ, Fitzsimons EJ, McMurray A, et al: Filgrastim fails to improve haemopoietic reconstitution following myeloablative chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell rescue. Br J Cancer 70:943-945, 1994.
25. Spitzer G, Adkins DR, Spencer V, et al: Randomized study of growth factors post-peripheral-blood stem-cell transplant: Neutrophil recovery is improved with modest clinical benefit. J Clin Oncol 12:661-670, 1994.
26. Schriber JR, Chao NJ, Long GD, et al: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood 84:1680-1684, 1994.
27. Dreger P, Haferlach T, Eckstein V, et al: G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells for allogeneic transplantation: Safety, kinetics of mobilization, and composition of the graft. Br J Haematol 87:609-613, 1994.
28. Cebon J, Layton JE, Maher D, et al: Endogenous haemopoietic growth factors in neutropenia and infection. Br J Haematol 86:265-274, 1994.
29. Maher DW, Lieschke GJ, Green M, et al: Filgrastim in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 121:492-501, 1994.
30. Gamucci T, Thorel MF, Frasca AM, et al: Erythropoietin for the prevention of anaemia in neoplastic patients treated with cisplatin. Eur J Cancer 29A(suppl 2):S13-S14, 1993.
31. Cascinu S, Fedeli A, Fedeli SL, et al: Cisplatin-associated anaemia treated with subcutaneous erythropoietin: A pilot study. Br J Cancer 67:156-158, 1993.
32. Miller CB, Platanias LC, Mills SR, et al: Phase I-II trial of erythropoietin in the treatment of cisplatin-associated anemia. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:98-103, 1992.
33. Henry DH, Abels RI: Recombinant human erythropoietin in the treatment of cancer and chemotherapy-induced anemia: Results of double-blind and open-label follow-up studies. Semin Oncol 21:21-28, 1994.
34. Case DC Jr., Bukowski RM, Carey RW, et al: Recombinant human erythropoietin therapy for anemic cancer patients on combination chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:801-806, 1993.
35. Cascinu S, Fedeli A, Del Ferro E, et al: Recombinant human erythropoietin treatment in cisplatin-associated anemia: A randomized, double-blind trial with placebo. J Clin Oncol 12:1058-1062, 1994.
36. Bukowski R, Glaspy J, Steinberg D, et al: Phase IV clinical evaluation of recombinant human erythropoietin (r- HuEPO) in anemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:A1594, 1994.
37. Chao NJ, Schriber JR, Long GD, et al: A randomized study of erythropoietin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus placebo and G-CSF for patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. Blood 83:2823-2828, 1994.
38. Glaspy JA, Bleecker G, Crawford J, et al: The impact of therapy with filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) on the health care costs associated with cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 29A(suppl 7): S23-S30, 1993.
39. Crawford J, Kreisman H, Garewal H, et al: A pharmacodynamic investigation of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (R-MetHuG-CSF) schedule variation in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) given CAE chemotherapy (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:A1005, 1992.
40. Lyman GH, Lyman CG, Sanderson RA, et al: Decision analysis of hematopoietic growth factor use in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:488-493, 1993.
41. Glaspy J: Economic effect of myeloid growth factors on cancer treatment. Clin Immunother 2:192-205, 1994
42. Uyl-de Groot CA, Ossenkoppele GJ, van Riet AA, et al: The costs of peripheral blood progenitor cell reinfusion mobilised by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following high dose melphalan as compared with conventional therapy in multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer 30A:457-459, 1994.
43. Uyl-de Groot CA, Richel DJ, Rutten FF: Peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation mobilised by r-metHuG-CSF (filgrastim): A less costly alternative to autologous bone marrow transplantation. Eur J Cancer 30A:1631-1635, 1994.
44. Crawford J, Glaspy J, Vincent M, et al: Effect of filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF) on oral mucositis in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and etoposide, CAE) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:A1523, 1994.
45. Gordon B, Spadinger A, Hodges E, et al: Effect of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on oral mucositis after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 12:1917-1922, 1994.