ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2011
Use of colony-stimulating factors with chemotherapy: opportunities for cost savings and improved outcomes.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Efficacy and safety of 3 mg pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as support to chemotherapy for lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2022Trial
- Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2017Trial
- A stakeholder-informed randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness study of an order prescribing intervention to improve colony stimulating factor use for cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: the TrACER study.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2017Trial
- Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2015Trial
- 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 · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as a support for chemotherapy for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor promotes regeneration of severed facial nerve in rats.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Granulocyte colony stimulating factor use and adherence to clinical practice guidelines among women with breast cancer living in Puerto Rico: a population-based study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- 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
- Trends in Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Introduction of Biosimilars Among Adults With Cancer and Commercial or Medicare Insurance From 2014 to 2019.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Long-term patient reported outcomes and hematologic toxicity among patients who received Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Article
- Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- The impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy: a single-institution retrospective review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Sulfated polymannuroguluronate TGC161 ameliorates leukopenia by inhibiting CD4Carbohydrate polymers · 2020Article
- A Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
- Appropriateness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients receiving chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk level.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2019Article
- Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study.BMC cancer · 2019Observational
- Real-world use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in ambulatory breast cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Myeloid colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) from high-risk chemotherapy regimens administered to patients at 20% or greater risk of FN, but little is known about their use in clinical practice. We evaluated CSF use in a multiregional population-based cohort of lung and colorectal cancer patients (N = 1849). Only 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8% to 26%) patients treated with high-risk chemotherapy regimens received CSFs, compared with 18% (95% CI = 16% to 20%) and 10% (95% CI = 8% to 12%) of patients treated with intermediate- (10%-20% risk of FN) and low-risk (<10% risk of FN) chemotherapy regimens, respectively. Using a generalized estimating equation model, we found that enrollment in a health maintenance organization (HMO) was strongly associated with a lower adjusted odds of discretionary CSF use, compared with non-HMO patients (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.60, P < .001). All statistical tests were two-sided. Overall, 96% (95% CI = 93% to 98%) of CSFs were administered in scenarios where CSF therapy is not recommended by evidence-based guidelines. This finding suggests that policies to decrease CSF use in patients at lower or intermediate risk of FN may yield substantial cost savings without compromising patient outcomes.
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.