Transitioning ifosfamide chemotherapy regimens to the ambulatory setting: reviewing cost savings and safety profile.

Abstract

PurposeTo characterize and compare both the outcome and cost of treatment of outpatient (OP) and inpatient (IP) ifosfamide therapy.MethodsA single-center retrospective chart review of patients 18 years and older receiving ifosfamide therapy. The primary endpoint compares and evaluates the side effect profiles of ifosfamide-treated patients in the OP/IP settings. The adverse event grading system was characterized using the CTCAE Version 5.0. The highest grade was documented per cycle. The secondary endpoint of this study compares the costs of OP/IP therapy. It was assumed that the cost of medication was equivalent for IP/OP treatments. The cost saved with OP administration was determined by the average cost of hospital stay for IP admission.ResultsIfosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were doxorobucin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB) occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921.ConclusionsTransitioning ifosfamide to the OP setting is feasible for academic and community infusion centers with the OP administration being safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care. The current processes allow for safe transition of chemotherapy of chemotherapy under times of COVID.