Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20191292›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2010

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Matti Aapro, Jeffrey Crawford, Didier Kamioner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Feasibility and safety of a reduced duration of therapy of colony-stimulating factor in a dose-dense regimen.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact of recommended weight-based dosing of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors in acute leukemia and stem cell transplant patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  19. Review
  20. A prospectively validated nomogram for predicting the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a multicenter study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matti AaproIMO Clinique de Genolier, 1272 Genolier, Switzerland. maapro@genolier.net
Jeffrey Crawford
Didier Kamioner
Clinique de Genolier · CHDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is >or=20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from 'real-world' clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsFeverGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGuidelines as TopicHumansMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalNeoplasmsNeutropeniaRisk AssessmentUnited StatesAntineoplastic AgentsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID20191292
PMCPMC2846279
OpenAlexW1997680067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.