Despite virtually identical rates of response, time to clinical response and estimated cost of care varied significantly among regimens. An early discharge strategy based on our definition of the time point of clinical response may further reduce the cost of treating non-low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia.

Outpatient treatment of low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients utilizing standard treatment pathways is associated with minimal morbidity and mortality and should be considered an acceptable standard of care with appropriate infrastructure available to provide strict and careful follow-up while on treatment. Certain factors are associated with higher risk of hospitalization and should be further examined in eligible patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia.

Cancer patients visiting the emergency center (EC) are seldom assessed or treated for severe fatigue, a common symptom in sick patients due to acute medical conditions arising from cancer and cancer treatment. We provide a profile of cancer-related fatigue within the EC setting. Using a single-item screening tool derived from the Brief Fatigue Inventory, 928 patients (636 with solid tumors, 292 with hematological malignancies) triaged in the EC of a tertiary cancer center rated their fatigue at its worst in the last 24 hours. Patient demographic and clinical factors were retrospectively reviewed from medical records. The chief complaints of patients seeking emergency care included fever, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, dyspnea, fatigue, and bleeding. More than half (54%) reported severe fatigue (seven or higher on a 0-10 scale) upon EC admission. Moderate to severe pain was highly associated with fatigue severity. Patients with severe fatigue were more likely to be unstable and unable to go home after EC care. In multivariate logistic regression analysis for severe fatigue, the significant risk factors for patients with solid tumors included dizziness (odds ratio [OR]=3.59), severe pain (OR=1.98), poor performance status (OR=1.81), and being female (OR=1.56). Dyspnea was significantly associated with severe fatigue in patients with hematological malignancies (OR=4.74). Although fatigue was not the major reason for an ER visit, single-item fatigue-severity screening demonstrated highly prevalent severe fatigue in sicker EC cancer patients and in those patients who also suffered from other symptoms.

BACKGROUNDHematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an effective but expensive medical procedure to which some ethnic minorities, the elderly, and those without insurance have been shown to have limited access. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether socioeconomic factors were associated with HSCT usage rates in patients with leukemia.METHODSThe authors identified 6574 patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelogenous leukeima, chronic myelogenous leukemia, or other leukemias from the 1999 Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File. Of these patients, 1604 received an autologous or allogeneic HSCT. The authors assessed patients' ethnicity, payer status, age, gender, and comorbid medical conditions. Logistic regression was used to control for patient characteristics and to evaluate associations among payer status, ethnicity, and HSCT use. P ≤ 0.05 indicated statistical significance.RESULTSPatients who self‐paid had the highest rate of HSCT use in all age groups (32%; P ≤ 0.01) and in the adult group (36%; P = 0.11). Elderly patients with Medicare had a low rate of HSCT use (17%; P = 0.13). Logistic regression showed no statistically significant associations between payer status or ethnicity and HSCT use. However, elderly women were significantly less likely to undergo HSCT than elderly men (odds ratio, 0.34; P ≤ 0.01).CONCLUSIONSThe lack of statistically significant differences in HSCT use among adult patients with leukemia was surprising because previous studies had shown differences in HSCT by ethnicity and insurance. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDAlthough the safety and efficacy of granulocyte–colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) (filgrastim) in the treatment of hematologic malignancies has been well established, to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of filgrastim administration during remission induction chemotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy has not been determined. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether a delay in the administration of filgrastim from Day 5 to Day 10 during chemotherapy with a hyper‐CVAD (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone) regimen resulted in a longer time to neutrophil or platelet count recovery or increased the incidence of infection.METHODSOne hundred ninety‐nine patients who achieved complete disease remission after a single course of induction chemotherapy were considered for evaluation. Induction chemotherapy was with hyper‐CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, 300 mg/m2, twice daily for Days 1–3; doxorubicin, 50 g/m2, on Day 4; vincristine, 2 mg, on Days 4 and 11; and dexamethasone, 40 mg, on Days 1–4 and Days 11–14), which also was given in odd‐numbered consolidation Courses 3, 5, and 7. Even‐numbered courses (Courses 2, 4, 6, and 8) were comprised of methotrexate, 200 mg/m2, over 2 hours followed by 800 mg/m2 over 24 hours on Day 1; cytarabine, 3 g/m2, every 12 hours for 4 doses over 2 days (Days 2 and 3); and intravenous methylprednisolone, 50 mg, twice daily on Days 1–3 (MTX/ara‐C regimen). Two sequential treatment groups were assessable based on timing of the filgrastim administration; 151 patients received filgrastim starting on Day 5 (D5) of induction chemotherapy and 48 patients received filgrastim starting on Day 10 (D10).RESULTSTime to neutrophil recovery was shorter for the D5 group than for the D10 group during induction chemotherapy (18 days vs. 19 days; P = 0.04) and hyper‐CVAD Courses 3 and 5 (12 days vs. 15 days during Course 3, P < 0.001; and 13 days vs. 16 days during Course 5, P = 0.002). There was no apparent significant difference between the two groups with regard to time to neutrophil recovery during the MTX/ara‐C courses or the last hyper‐CVAD course. Delay in the administration of filgrastim did not appear to result in an increase in time to platelet count recovery or in the incidence of infection; however, there was an increased incidence of mucositis during induction chemotherapy.CONCLUSIONSFor a hyper‐CVAD and MTX/ara‐C regimen, the results of the current study have shown that the administration of filgrastim can be delayed until Day 10 without increasing the risk of treatment‐related morbidity during consolidation chemotherapy. During induction chemotherapy, delay in the administration of filgrastim may result in a slight increase in the time to neutrophil count recovery and risk of mucositis, but there is no apparent associated increase in the risk of infection. Cancer 2002;94:285–91. © 2002 American Cancer Society.