Trials / Completed

CompletedNCT02728596

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

A Pragmatic Trial to Evaluate a Guideline-Based Colony Stimulating Factor Standing Order Intervention and to Determine the Effectiveness of Colony Stimulating Factor Use as a Prophylaxis for Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia - Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER)

Status: Completed
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional
Enrollment: 3,665 (actual)

Sponsor: SWOG Cancer Research Network · Network
Sex: All
Age: 18 Years
Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

This randomized clinical trial studies prophylactic colony stimulating factor management in patients with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and with risk of developing febrile neutropenia. Patients receiving chemotherapy may develop febrile neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia is a condition that involves fever and a low number of neutrophils (a type of white blood cell) in the blood. Febrile neutropenia increases the risk of infection. Colony stimulating factors are medications sometimes given to patients receiving chemotherapy to prevent febrile neutropenia. Colony stimulating factors are given to patients based on guidelines. Some clinics have an automated system that helps doctors decide when to prescribe them when there is a high risk of developing febrile neutropenia. Gathering information about the use of an automated system to prescribe prophylactic colony stimulating factor may help doctors use colony stimulating factor when it is needed.

Detailed 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 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.

Conditions

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
OTHER	Preventive Intervention	Automated ordering system recommends prescribing or not prescribing CSF based on drug's risk level for FN
OTHER	Quality-of-Life Assessment	Ancillary studies
OTHER	Questionnaire Administration	Ancillary studies

Timeline

Start date: 2016-10-07
Primary completion: 2021-04-30
Completion: 2021-08-12
First posted: 2016-04-05
Last updated: 2022-10-20
Results posted: 2022-10-20

Locations

160 sites across 2 countries: United States, Puerto Rico

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT02728596. Inclusion in this directory is not an endorsement.