S1415CD, Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER)

Summary

Participation Requirements

Description

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the use of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) according to recommended clinical practice guidelines among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. II. To compare the rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) among pati...

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the use of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) according to recommended clinical practice guidelines among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. II. To compare the rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. III. To compare the rate of FN among intermediate risk patients registered at intervention components by component treatment assignment (administer PP-CSF to intermediate risk patients versus not). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare the rate of FN among low-risk patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. II. To compare the FN-related health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among low-risk patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. III. To compare patient adherence to PP-CSF prescribing among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. IV. To compare patient knowledge of the indications for, efficacy of, and side effects associated with PP-CSF between the initiation and conclusion of the first cycle of myelosuppressive systemic therapy among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. V. To compare the proportion of patients completing the initial systemic therapy regimen at planned duration and at planned dose intensity among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. VI. To compare antibiotic use both as prophylaxis and as treatment for FN among patients registered at intervention components versus usual care components. VII. To compare the rate of FN-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among intermediate risk patients registered to Intervention components by component treatment assignment (administer PP-CSF to intermediate risk patients versus not). VIII. To compare the FN-related health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among intermediate risk patients registered to intervention components by component treatment assignment (administer PP-CSF to intermediate risk patients versus not). IX. To compare overall survival among intermediate risk patients registered to intervention components by component treatment assignment (administer PP-CSF to intermediate risk patients versus not). TERTIARY OBJECTIVES: I. To characterize and descriptively report the differences among cohort components and the intervention and usual care components. II. To evaluate the time to invasive recurrence in non-metastatic patients by component treatment assignment OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 4 clinic groups. CLINIC GROUP 1 (CLINIC WITH AUTOMATED SYSTEM): Patients with a high risk of developing FN receive CSF based on the automated system recommendations. The automated system suggests that CSFs not be used for drugs that have a low risk of FN. CLINIC GROUP 2 (CLINIC WITH NO AUTOMATED SYSTEM): Patients receive CSF based on clinical practice guidelines. CLINIC GROUP 3 (CLINIC WITH AUTOMATED SYSTEM): Patients with a high or moderate risk of developing FN receive CSF based on the automated system recommendations. The automated system suggests that CSFs not be used for drugs that have a low risk of FN. CLINIC GROUP 4 (CLINIC WITH AUTOMATED SYSTEM): Patients with a high risk of developing FN receive CSF based on the automated system recommendations. The automated system suggests that CSF not be used for drugs that have a moderate risk of FN. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up for 12 months.

Tracking Information