OBJECTIVES: The aim of present analysis was to assess cost-effectiveness of lenograstim in comparison with other G-CSFs – filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in Polish settings (threshold is about 100,095 PLN). METHODS: Analysis covered time horizon of one chemotherapy cycle. A public payer perspective was adopted for cost analysis. The costs included were based on Polish NHF reference costs list. Data on time to ANC recovery, number of days with fever, length of hospital stay and antibiotics use were obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in the conducted systematic review. These included trials on prophylactic G-CSF use as well as trials in which only patients with neutropenia were included. Equations describing costs and QALY according to neutropenia and fever length, hospital stay and antibiotic use were established. RESULTS: Estimated QALY difference between lenograstim and filgrastim is 0.0035 (CI95%[0.0023; 0.0048]), compared to pegfilgrastim is 0.0039 (CI95%[0.0026; 0.0052]). Total costs difference between lenograstim and filgrastim is -2015 PLN (CI95%[-3004; -938]) and compared to pegfilgrastim is -3236 PLN (CI95%[-4125; -2259]). Probability of lenograstim being cost-effective over filgrastim is 99.98% and over pegfilgrastim is 100%. Taking into account only trials where G-CSFs were used in neutropenia prophylaxis estimated QALY difference between lenograstim and filgrastim is 0.0029 (CI95%[0.0015; 0.0044]), compared to pegfilgrastim is 0.0031 (CI95%[0.0017; 0.0047]). Total costs difference between lenograstim and filgrastim is -1720 PLN (CI95%[-2935; -487]) and compared to pegfilgrastim is -3097 PLN (CI95%[-4168; -1943]). Probability of lenograstim being cost-effective over filgrastim is 99.81% and over pegfilgrastim is 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Lenograstim is dominant over filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. Acknowledgements: This analysis was supported by Sanofi-Aventis.