Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22876152›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2012

Use and delivery of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy-single-centre experience.

X Zhu, N Bouganim, L Vandermeer, S F Dent, G Dranitsaris, M J Clemons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Outcomes of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with sequential anthracyclines-taxanes in relationship to relative dosing intensity: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019
    Article
  3. Filgrastim use in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer-a survey of physicians and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. 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

6 authors.

X ZhuDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
N Bouganim
L Vandermeer
S F Dent
G Dranitsaris
M J Clemons

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) as primary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has significant cost implications. We examined use of g-csf for early-stage breast cancer patients at our centre. The study also examined the pattern of nurse-led patient teaching with respect to drug self-administration.

methodsPatients who received g-csf between November 2009 and October 2010 were identified from pharmacy records. After consent had been obtained, electronic charts were examined to extract data on chemotherapy and use of g-csf. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain information on the utilization of home-care nursing visits for g-csf administration.

resultsThe study analyzed 36 patients. Median age was 58 years (range: 31-78 years). Of the 36 patients, 30 (83%) had received adjuvant treatment, and 6 (17%), neoadjuvant treatment. Most patients (71%) received 10 days (range: 7-10 days) of filgrastim. Of the 36 patients, 29 (81%) received g-csf as primary prophylaxis. In 90% of those patients, primary prophylaxis commenced with the taxane component of treatment. Of the 36 patients, 7 (19%) received g-csf after neutropenia, including 2 who had febrile neutropenia. In 96% of the patients, injections were received at home with the help of a nurse; those patients were subsequently taught self-injection techniques. The median number of nursing visits was 2 (range: 1-3 visits). Most patients were satisfied with the home care and g-csf teaching they received.

conclusionsMost of the g-csf used in breast cancer treatment during the study period was given for primary prophylaxis. A major reason for the decision to use g-csf appears to have been physician-perceived risk of febrile neutropenia. Delivery of g-csf by home-care nurses was well received by patients.

Indexed as

breast cancerchemotherapydrug administrationfebrile neutropeniaGrowth factorneutropeniaprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID22876152
PMCPMC3410835

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.