Are you Kate Bendall?

Claim your profile

Publications (13)

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: To investigate the use and impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) on chemotherapy delivery and neutropenia management in breast cancer in a clinical practice setting. Methods: IMPACT Solid was an international, prospective observational study in patients with a physician-assessed febrile neutropenia (FN) risk of >= 20%. This analysis focused on stages I-III breast cancer patients who received a standard chemotherapy regimen for which the FN risk was published. Chemotherapy delivery and neutropenia-related outcomes were reported according to the FN risk of the regimen and intent of G-CSF use. Results: 690 patients received a standard chemotherapy regimen; 483 received the textbook dose/schedule with a majority of these regimens (84%) having a FN risk >= 10%. Patients receiving a regimen with a FN risk >= 10% were younger with better performance status than those receiving a regimen with a FN risk < 10%. Patients who received higher-risk regimens were more likely to receive G-CSF primary prophylaxis (48% vs 22%), complete their planned chemotherapy (97% vs 88%) and achieve relative dose intensity >= 85% (93% vs 86%) than those receiving lower-risk regimens. Most first FN events (56%) occurred in cycles not supported with G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Conclusion: Physicians generally recommend standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and were more likely to follow G-CSF guidelines for younger, good performance status patients in the curative setting, and often modify standard regimens in more compromised patients. However, G-CSF support is not optimal, indicated by G-CSF primary prophylaxis use in < 50% of high-risk patients and observation of FN without G-CSF support.
    Article · Feb 2016 · The Breast
  • Dataset · Mar 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Clinical practice adherence to current guidelines that recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for patients at high (≥20 %) overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) was evaluated. Adult patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), or ovarian cancer were enrolled if myelotoxic chemotherapy was planned, and they had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥20 %. The primary outcome was FN incidence. In total, 1,347 patients were analysed (breast cancer, n = 829; NSCLC, n = 224; SCLC, n = 137; ovarian cancer, n = 157). Patients with breast cancer exhibited fewer individual FN risk factors than patients with other cancers and were far more likely to have received a high-FN-risk chemotherapy regimen. However, a substantial proportion of all patients (45-80 % across tumour types) did not receive G-CSF PP in alignment with investigator risk assessment and guideline recommendations. FN occurred in 127 patients overall (9 %, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8-11 %), and incidence was higher in SCLC (15 %) than other tumour types (8 % in ovarian and NSCLC, 9 % in breast cancer). A post hoc analysis of G-CSF use indicated that G-CSF prophylaxis was not given within the recommended timeframe after chemotherapy (within 1-3 days) or was not continued across all cycles in 39 % of patients. FN risk assessment was predominantly based on clinical judgement and individual risk factors, and guidelines regarding G-CSF PP for patients at high FN risk were not consistently followed. Improved education of physicians may enable more fully informed neutropenia management in patients with solid tumours.
    Full-text Article · Oct 2013 · Supportive Care in Cancer
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks · Kate Louise Bendall · Alena M Pfeil · [...] · Ruth Pettengell
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious complication of chemotherapy treatment. Clinical risk models may help identify high risk FN patients but must undergo external validation before implementation in medical practice. Therefore, this study externally validated previously published clinical models of FN occurrence during chemotherapy in 240 non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients by using an independent observational dataset (N=1829). The models demonstrated predictive ability, and validation criteria for predicting any cycle FN were partially met but a larger than expected decrease in performance was noted (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.71 in the validation dataset and 0.83 in the training dataset). Age, weight, baseline white blood cell counts and planned chemotherapy parameters were confirmed to predict FN risk. Chemotherapy dose reductions, dose delays and colony-stimulating factor use were confirmed as risk modifiers during treatment. Further work is needed to improve the predictive ability of FN risk models.
    Article · Mar 2013 · Leukemia & lymphoma
  • Source
    Full-text Article · Dec 2012 · Supportive Care in Cancer
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The incidence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is increasing in the elderly population, which is a more challenging population to treat because of comorbidities and enhanced sensitivity to chemotherapy toxicities. This analysis evaluated the impact of age group on assessment of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk, supportive care management, and chemotherapy delivery. The IMPACT non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) trial was an observational study conducted in Europe and Australia. This analysis included 1113 patients with DLBCL treated with rituximab (R)-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], and prednisone) every 14 days (n = 409) or every 21 days (n = 704). Outcomes were reported for ages < 65 years and ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome in this analysis was the proportion of patients assessed by investigators as having an overall high (≥ 20%) FN risk who received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis. For R-CHOP-14, investigators assessed 78% of younger patients and 80% of older patients with ≥ 20% risk of FN, although 14% of younger and 19% of older high-risk patients did not receive G-CSF primary prophylaxis. For R-CHOP-21, investigators assessed 52% of younger and 71% of older patients with ≥ 20% risk of FN; however, 61% of younger and 47% of older high-risk patients did not receive G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Regardless of chemotherapy regimen, rates of FN and unplanned hospitalization were higher in older patients, and delivery of chemotherapy was poorer. Adherence to G-CSF guidelines in patients assessed with high FN risk was suboptimal in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP chemotherapy, with substantial proportions of both younger and older patients receiving R-CHOP-21 failing to receive optimal G-CSF support. Better application of guidelines could reduce FN rates and improve outcomes.
    Article · Oct 2012 · Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background Economic implications of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in European and Australian clinical practice are largely unknown. Methods Data were obtained from a European (97%) and Australian (3%) observational study of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP (±rituximab) chemotherapy. For each patient, each cycle of chemotherapy within the course, and each occurrence of FN within cycles, was identified. Patients developing FN in a given cycle (“FN patients”), starting with the first, were matched to those who did not develop FN in that cycle (“comparison patients”), irrespective of subsequent FN events. FN-related healthcare costs (£2010) were tallied for the initial FN event as well as follow-on care and FN events in subsequent cycles. Results Mean total cost was £5776 (95%CI £4928-£6713) higher for FN patients (n = 295) versus comparison patients, comprising £4051 (£3633-£4485) for the initial event and a difference of £1725 (£978-£2498) in subsequent cycles. Among FN patients requiring inpatient care (76% of all FN patients), mean total cost was higher by £7259 (£6327-£8205), comprising £5281 (£4810-£5774) for the initial hospitalization and a difference of £1978 (£1262-£2801) in subsequent cycles. Conclusions Cost of chemotherapy-induced FN among NHL patients in European and Australian clinical practice is substantial; a sizable percentage is attributable to follow-on care and subsequent FN events.
    Full-text Article · Aug 2012 · BMC Cancer
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Table S1. Characteristics of FN and comparison patients matched on basis of original criteria in sSAP; Table S2. UK-specific unit costs of FN-related care; Table S3. Characteristics of FN patients and comparison patients matched on basis of age (±5 years), tumor stage, chemotherapy regimen, and propensity score; Table S4. Characteristics of full patient population, unmatched patients, and matched patients; Table S5. Healthcare utilization among FN patients and matched comparison patients matched, by country; Table S6. Healthcare costs among FN patients and comparison patients matched on basis of age (±5 years), country of residence, tumor stage, bone marrow involvement, IPI/FLIPI score, and chemotherapy regimen; Table S7. Healthcare costs among FN patients and matched comparison patients, excluding hospital admissions designated as “elective” from calculation of unit costs; Table S8. Healthcare costs among FN patients and matched comparison patients, using PbR tariffs as basis of unit cost of hospital care.(XLS 469 kb)
    Full-text Dataset · Aug 2012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Febrile neutropenia (FN) risk-assessment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis use in clinical practice was evaluated in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving R-CHOP-21. More G-CSF primary prophylaxis was used in patients assessed as high FN risk, but R-CHOP-21 was associated with substantial myelotoxicity in both high- and low-risk groups. In a multivariate analysis, older age, poor performance status, lower baseline hemoglobin, and lack of G-CSF prophylaxis were significantly associated with occurrence of FN in any cycle. Results highlight the need for improved FN risk-assessment and thorough guideline adherence to further reduce FN and better support chemotherapy delivery.
    Article · Feb 2012 · Leukemia research
  • Source
    Full-text Article · Jan 2012
  • Article · Nov 2011 · Leukemia & lymphoma
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This analysis from an observational study of clinical practice describes the impact of febrile neutropenia (FN) on chemotherapy delivery and hospitalizations. Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) scheduled to receive ≥ 3 cycles of 2- or 3-weekly CHOP with rituximab (R-CHOP-14/21) were eligible. Primary outcome was incidence of FN. FN data were available for 409 patients receiving R-CHOP-14 and 702 patients receiving R-CHOP-21. FN incidence was R-CHOP-14, 20% (81/409) and R-CHOP-21, 19% (133/702). Rates of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor were R-CHOP-14, 84% (345/409) and R-CHOP-21, 36% (252/702). A large number of patients experienced their first FN episode in cycle 1 (R-CHOP-14, 24/81 [30%]; R-CHOP-21, 63/133 [47%]). Multiple risk factors (≥ 2) for FN were more frequent in patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 60/81 [74%] versus 179/328 [55%]; R-CHOP-21, 98/133 [74%] versus 339/569 [60%]). A similar trend was observed for unplanned hospitalizations (R-CHOP-14, 63/81 [78%] versus 68/328 [21%]; R-CHOP-21, 105/133 [79%] versus 100/569 [18%]). Achievement of chemotherapy relative dose intensity ≥ 90% was lower among patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 30/81 [37%] versus 234/328 [71%]; R-CHOP-21, 83/133 [62%] versus 434/569 [76%]). In patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP-14 or R-CHOP-21, patients with an event of FN were more likely to experience suboptimal chemotherapy delivery and increased incidence of unplanned hospitalizations than those without FN. FN-related hospitalizations are likely to impact chemotherapy delivery and to incur substantial costs.
    Full-text Article · Nov 2011 · Supportive Care in Cancer
  • Conference Paper · Nov 2009