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.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Review
- 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 · 2019Article
- 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 · 2018Article
- Acute Zika Virus Infection in an Endemic Area Shows Modest Proinflammatory Systemic Immunoactivation and Cytokine-Symptom Associations.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
- 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 · 2016Article
- The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a Canadian outpatient setting.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.