ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2005
Comparison of lenograstim and filgrastim: effects on blood cell recovery after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction of a Pichia pastoris strain efficiently producing recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) and study of its biological activity on bone marrow cells.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
- Use of biosimilar filgrastim compared with lenograstim in autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplant and in sibling allogeneic transplant.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2015Article
- Filgrastim XM02 (Tevagrastim®) after autologous stem cell transplantation compared to lenograstim: favourable cost-efficacy analysis.Ecancermedicalscience · 2013Article
- Review
- Optimal use of G-CSF administration after hematopoietic SCT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2009Review
- Granulocyte and erythropoietic stimulating proteins after high-dose chemotherapy for myeloma.Bone marrow transplantation · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether glycosylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim) offers a benefit over non-glycosylated G-CSF (filgrastim) in clinically relevant end points after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the outcome of 261 patients treated with either lenograstim (n=68) or filgrastim (n=193). Time to blood cell recovery, toxicities, and infectious complications were analyzed in a total of 469 G-CSF treatment cycles.
resultsMean time to leukocyte recovery was 10.7 days (SD+/-0.9) (lenograstim) and 10.8 days (SD+/-0.6) (filgrastim), respectively. Likewise, time to thrombocyte engraftment, febrile days, duration of therapeutic antibiotic treatment, severity of non-hematological toxicities, duration of in-hospital stay, and duration of G-CSF treatment were similar in both groups. Owing to the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of lenograstim, the required dose until leukocyte recovery was significantly smaller as compared to filgrastim (38.5 vs 54.0 microg/kg of body weight).
conclusionsCollectively, our data indicate that both G-CSF preparations are equally effective in hastening leukocyte recovery in the setting of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous PBSCT.
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.