Trial reportGynecologic oncology2012
Cytokine use and survival in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.
Trial report in Gynecologic oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The significance of G-CSF expression and myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the chemoresistance of uterine cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Role of mesenchymal cells in the natural history of ovarian cancer: a review.Journal of translational medicine · 2014Review
- Erythropoietin and cancer: the unintended consequences of anemia correction.Frontiers in immunology · 2014Review
- Role of the microenvironment in ovarian cancer stem cell maintenance.BioMed research international · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGranulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA) may be used to support patients during chemotherapy. We assessed whether G-CSF or ESA were associated with progression or death in patients with ovarian cancer.
methodsPatients with ovarian cancer following surgery, were on a protocol to evaluate bevacizumab with chemotherapy. Guidelines for administering G-CSF and ESA were specified in the protocol. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with landmark procedures and multivariate, time-dependent hazard models.
resultsEighteen-hundred-seventy-three women were enrolled, with no differences in clinical and pathologic variables among treatment group. Performance status, hemoglobin, and white cell counts were associated with G-CSF and/or ESA usage during treatment. Nine patients received no protocol directed therapy, leaving 1864 patients for this review. One-thousand-one-hundred-twenty-five patients received neither ESA nor G-CSF; 311 received G-CSF but no ESA; 241 received ESA but no G-CSF; and 187 received both. Median survival following a five month landmark from the start of treatment was 34 versus 38 months for those who did versus did not receive ESA (multivariate hazard ratio: 0.989; 95% confidence interval: 0.849-1.15) and 40 versus 37 months for those who did versus did not receive G-CSF (multivariate hazard ratio: 0.932; 95% confidence interval: 0.800-1.08).
conclusionsNeither ESA nor G-CSF had a negative impact on survival after adjustment of prognostic factors among patients with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. ESA may appear to be associated with shorter survival in univariate analyses because factors prognostic for ESA use are also prognostic for progression-free survival.
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.