ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Prophylactic G-CSF in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a health economic review.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- A prospective, controlled study of the botanical compound mixture LCS101 for chemotherapy-induced hematological complications in breast cancer.The oncologist · 2011Trial
- Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN): healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients in the US.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Effect of the botanical compound LCS102 on innate immunity.Biomedical reports · 2020Article
- Leptin-cytokine crosstalk in breast cancer.Molecular and cellular endocrinology · 2014Review
- Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP chemotherapy treatment without adversely affecting their quality of life: cost-benefit and quality of life analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013Article
- Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in the US.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Article
- Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of prophylactic antibiotics.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
- Impact of effective prevention and management of febrile neutropenia.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
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
Although the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy is supported by clinical research evidence and advocated by international clinical guidelines when the consequent risk of febrile neutropenia exceeds 20%, there remains doubt as to the cost-effectiveness of the practice. There are limited economic data, and the data that are available are not necessarily applicable to the management of breast cancer in a European setting. Much of the available evidence on G-CSF in the management of febrile neutropenia is partial, focusing primarily on direct costs to the health service - that is, those related to hospitalisation and drug treatment. A full assessment of the cost effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis needs to take account of both costs and outcomes, including mortality, quality of life and patient functioning. As febrile neutropenia has been shown to affect productivity, consideration should also be given to quantifying the indirect costs of neutropenia.
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.