OBJECTIVES:  To assess the cost-effectiveness of lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, lenograstim in prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients in Russia for 1-year period. METHODS:  A decision tree was used to simulate the efficacy and costs of medicinal drugs. The data on drugs efficacy (measured as percentage of responders to the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis) was obtained from «Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia» by T.C. Bond. The following costs were taken into account: costs for the treatment course with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor drugs (including ones for administration of the drugs), costs for the treatment of a febrile neutropenia event, expenses for management of adverse events associated with administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor drugs. As a result cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of G-CSF was calculated. RESULTS:  Prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim leads to the 1-year percentage of prophylaxis responders as 97,3%, pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, lenograstim results in 91,90%, 87,60% and 87,60% . As a result, the prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim is characterized by the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio (217352 rubles/3289 $) as compared to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim (342748 rub/5186 $), filgrastim (302077 rub./4571 $ for 11 days of prophylaxis), lenograstim (788582 rub./11932 $ for 11 days of prophylaxis) by the end of the 1st year of prophylaxis. Current rate taken as for 15.06.2016 is 1$ = 66,09 RUB. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of pharmacoeconomic analysis it is preferable to use lipegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia compared to other G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, lenograstim), as it allows to increase the number of patients who responded to prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia while reducing costs as compared to other granulocyte colony-stimulating factor drugs.