ArticleBone marrow transplantation2010
Comparison between filgrastim and lenograstim plus chemotherapy for mobilization of PBPCs.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim in the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Trial
- Mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells with lenograstim in multiple myeloma patients: Prospective multicenter observational study (KMM122).Cancer medicine · 2023Observational
- 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
- Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey.Journal of blood medicine · 2019Article
- Development ofFrontiers in chemistry · 2018Article
- Filgrastim XM02 (Tevagrastim®) after autologous stem cell transplantation compared to lenograstim: favourable cost-efficacy analysis.Ecancermedicalscience · 2013Article
- Induction therapy and stem cell mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Stem cells international · 2012Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recombinant human (rHu) G-CSF has been widely used to treat neutropenia and mobilize PBPCs for their autologous and allogeneic transplantation. It shortens neutropenia and thus reduces the frequency of neutropenic fever. We compared the efficiency of glycosylated rHu and non-glycosylated Hu G-CSF in mobilizing hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs). In total, 86 patients were consecutively enrolled for mobilization with CY plus either glycosylated or non-glycosylated G-CSF, and underwent leukapheresis. The HPC content of each collection, toxicity, days of leukapheresis needed to reach the minimum HPC target and days to recover WBC (> or =500 and >1000/mm(3)) and plts (>50 000/mm(3)) were evaluated. Glycosylated G-CSF mobilized more CD34+ cells than did the non-glycosylated form. The ability to reach a collection target of >3 x 10(6) CD34+/kg body weight in two leukaphereses was higher for glycosylated G-CSF. No significant differences between the two regimens were observed with regard to toxicity and days to WBC and plt recovery. High-dose CY plus glycosylated G-CSF achieved adequate mobilization and the collection target more quickly and with fewer leukaphereses.
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.