ReviewDrugs2002
Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients.
Review in Drugs, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.PharmacoEconomics · 2003Pooled it
- Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Results of a Phase III Trial.The oncologist · 2020Trial
- Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.Annals of hematology · 2019Trial
- A pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics equivalence trial of the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, MYL-1401H, versus reference pegfilgrastim.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Trial
- [Application of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2017Trial
- A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of the pharmacodynamic profiles of a biosimilar filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim: results from a randomized, phase I trial.Annals of hematology · 2010Trial
- Pharmacokinetic profiles of a biosimilar filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim: results from a randomized, phase I trial.Annals of hematology · 2010Trial
- Trial
- Cognitive impairment is associated with altered blood cell profiles in aggressive lymphoma.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Mechanisms of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer: Advancing Targeted Therapeutic Strategies.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Microbiological profile and 30-day mortality outcomes in febrile neutropenia among solid malignancy patients: a multicentre retrospective study from resource-limited setting.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the potential bioactive compounds group and mechanism of Ci Bai Capsule in treating leukopenia: a combined approach of network pharmacology and transcriptome evidences.Chinese medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the involvement of serine proteases in neutrophil extracellular traps: a review of mechanisms and implications.Cell death & disease · 2025Review
- Comparative efficacy of moxibustion in chemotherapy-induced leukopenia: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- Impact of Hepatoblastoma on Infectious Complications Following Pediatric Liver Transplantation.Pediatric transplantation · 2025Article
- Neutrophils unveiled in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.