Reduction of Inappropriate Prophylactic Pegylated Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Use for Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Who Receive Chemotherapy: An ASCO Quality Training Program Project of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute.

Autor:	Goodman LM; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA goodmal2@ccf.org., Moeller MB; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Azzouqa AG; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Guthrie AE; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Dalby CK; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Earl MA; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Cheng C; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Pennell NA; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Shapiro M; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Velcheti V; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA., Stevenson JP; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of oncology practice [J Oncol Pract] 2016 Jan; Vol. 12 (1), pp. e101-7.
DOI:	10.1200/JOP.2015.006502
Abstrakt:	Purpose: Routine prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pGCSF) administration for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens associated with low risk (< 10%) for neutropenic fever (LRNF) is not recommended. Inappropriate use of pGCSF increases patient morbidity and health care costs. Methods: A multidisciplinary team reviewed the charts of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the Taussig Cancer Institute in whom a new chemotherapy regimen was initiated from April through November 2013. pGCSF use was identified and deemed appropriate if prescribed for chemotherapy associated with high risk of neutropenic fever (> 20%) or intermediate risk (10% to 20%) if other risk factors for neutropenic fever were present. Use with LRNF chemotherapy was recorded as inappropriate. Results: One hundred eighty patients with NSCLC received a new chemotherapy regimen during the specified time period. Thirty-four of 119 patients (28%) treated with LRNF chemotherapy received pGCSF. Each patient received an average of 2.6 doses of pGCSF (total, 89 doses). We implemented three plan-do-study-act cycles: education of providers, development of Taussig Cancer Institute consensus guidelines for pGCSF in NSCLC, and removal of standing pGCSF orders from LRNF chemotherapy in the electronic medical record. Analysis during the change period revealed 4% of patients with NSCLC treated with LRNF chemotherapy received pGCSF. Cost analysis showed an 84% decrease in billed charges per month. No increase in neutropenic fever admissions was found. Conclusion: pGCSF was excessively prescribed for patients with NSCLC. Factors contributing to inappropriate use included provider lack of familiarity with guidelines and knowledge with regard to the risk of neutropenic fever for individual chemotherapy regimens, and electronic medical record chemotherapy templates that contain standing GCSF orders. Interventions to address these gaps quickly produced improved compliance with guidelines and led to significant cost savings. (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu