Abstract P4-03-33: A Population-based Analysis of Prophylactic G-CSF Biosimilar and Originator Administration over time among Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A Population-based Analysis of Prophylactic G-CSF Biosimilar and Originator Administration over time among Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer Pawloski PA1, McDermott CL2, Vazquez Benitez G1, DeFor T1, Mendelsohn A3, Marshall J3, Moyneur E4, Lockhart CM2; on behalf of the G-CSF Comparative Effectiveness Research Team. 1HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington MN USA 2Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium, Alexandria VA USA 3Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston MA USA 4StatLog, Montreal QC Canada Objectives: To characterize G-CSF product use, including product switching, among patients diagnosed with breast cancer in the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium’s (BBCIC) Distributed Research Network (DRN). Methods: A retrospective analysis of electronically extracted insurance claims from 2015-2019 at 4 Research Partner Sites was conducted. Patients aged >=20 years with a diagnosis of breast cancer who received chemotherapy associated with a risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), defined as before day 2 of the first cycle of chemotherapy were included. Results: A total of 11,788 patients were included; 89 (0.8%) were male sex per insurance records. The age distribution was 5,743 (49%) 50-64 years; 4,296 (36%) 20-49 years, and 1749 (15%) 65+ years. Chemotherapy regimens included cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin (n=7,377), carboplatin/docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab (n=1,862), cyclophosphamide/docetaxel (n=1,383), carboplatin/docetaxel/trastuzumab (n=430), cyclophosphamide/docetaxel/doxorubicin (n=147), and docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab (n=128). Overall, 218 patients (1.8%) developed FN during the first chemotherapy cycle. G-CSF utilization was pegfilgrastim 10,895 (92%), pegfilgrastim-cbqv 315 (3%), pegfilgrastim-jmdb 225 (2%), filgrastim 156 (1%), filgrastim-sndz 118 (1%), tbo-filgrastim 46 (< 1%), a combination of pegfilgrastim+filgrastim 26 (< 1%), and a combination of filgrastim+biosimilar 7 (< 1%) received. A total of 10,953 (93%) patients received high-risk chemotherapy and G-CSF utilization was 10,162 (93%) pegfilgrastim, 288 (3%) pegfilgrastim-cbqv, 200 (2%) pegfilgrastim-jmdb, 132 (1%) filgrastim, 101 (< 1%) filgrastim-sndz, 40 (< 1%) tbo-filgrastim, and 30 (< 1%) combination of products. Eight hundred fifteen (7%) patients received intermediate-risk chemotherapy and G-CSF utilization was, 716 (88%) pegfilgrastim, 27 (3%) pegfilgrastim-cbqv, 25 (3%) pegfilgrastim-jmdb, 23 (3%) filgrastim, 16 (2%) filgrastim-sndz, 5 (< 1%) tbo-filgrastim, and 3 (< 1%) combination. Twenty patients received low risk chemotherapy and of those 17 (85%) received pegfilgrastim. In 2019, the first full year of pegfilgrastim biosimilar availability, pegfilgrastim use was 76% pegfilgrastim, 13% pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and 9% pegfilgrastim-jmdb. Most patients who received a second cycle of chemotherapy received the same G-CSF product in the second cycle, specifically 67% received filgrastim, 71% tbo-filgrastim, 73% filgrastim-sndz, 96% pegfilgrastim, 84% pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and 81% pegfilgrastim-jmdb. Conclusions: The most common chemotherapy agents included cyclophosphamide, carboplatin, doxorubicin, docetaxel, or pertuzumab. Pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake occurred following market availability. Within each G-CSF product, most patients received the same product during the second cycle of chemotherapy rather than switching products. Citation Format: Pamala A. Pawloski, Cara L McDermott, Gabriela Vazquez Benitez, Terese DeFor, Aaron B. Mendelsohn, James Marshall, Erick Moyneur, Catherine Lockhart. A Population-based Analysis of Prophylactic G-CSF Biosimilar and Originator Administration over time among Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-03-33.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».