Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22252548›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2012

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant TC or FEC-D chemotherapy outside of clinical trial settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tallal Younis, Daniel Rayson, Kara Thompson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Febrile neutropenia and role of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in docetaxel and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Febrile neutropenia in adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a retrospective study in routine clinical practice from a single institution.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Is febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors economically justified for adjuvant TC chemotherapy in breast cancer?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Tallal YounisAtlantic Clinical Cancer Research Unit, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. tallal.younis@cdha.nshealth.ca
Daniel Rayson
Kara Thompson
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariable febrile neutropenia (FN) rates reported with adjuvant TC (taxotere®, cyclophosphamide) and FEC-D (5-flurouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel) outside of clinical trials have precluded definitive recommendations for primary G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) prophylaxis in most jurisdictions. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess: (a) FN rates associated with TC and FEC-D without primary G-CSF prophylaxis outside of clinical trial settings, and (b) the potential impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on FN prevention.

methodsA MEDLINE search was conducted and major conference abstracts were reviewed up to June 15th 2011 to identify all relevant English-language studies. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analysis models were performed.

resultsNine hundred two patients treated with TC and 1342 with FEC-D from 13 to 9 studies, respectively, were included. The pooled random-effects meta-analysis estimates of FN rates for TC and FEC-D without G-CSF were 29% (95% CI 24-35%) and 31% (95% CI 27-35%), with a 76% (RR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41) and 63% (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.11-1.24) relative risk reduction with G-CSF, respectively.

conclusionIn routine clinical practice, TC and FEC-D without G-CSF are associated with FN rates exceeding the 20% threshold for which primary G-CSF prophylaxis is commonly recommended, and are considerably higher than those reported in pivotal clinical trials.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCyclophosphamideDocetaxelEpirubicinFeverFluorouracilGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansMiddle AgedNeutropeniaTaxoidsCyclophosphamideDocetaxelEpirubicinFluorouracilGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorTaxoids

Identifiers

PMID22252548
OpenAlexW2077962461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.