ArticlePloS one2014
Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide (DC) with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on days 8 &12 in breast cancer patients: a retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Febrile neutropenia and its associated hospitalization in breast cancer patients on docetaxel-containing regimen: A retrospective cohort study on duration of prophylactic GCSF administration.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFour cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (DC) resulted in superior survival than doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide in the treatment of early breast cancer. The original study reported a 5% incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) recommending prophylactic antibiotics with no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The worldwide adoption of this protocol yielded several reports on substantially higher rates of FN events. We explored the use of growth factor (GF) support on days 8 and 12 of the cycle with the original DC protocol.
methodsOur study included all consecutive patients with stages I-II breast cancer who were treated with the DC protocol at the Institute of Oncology, Davidoff Center (Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel) from April, 2007 to March, 2012. Patient, tumor characteristics, and toxicity were reported.
resultsIn total, 123 patients received the DC regimen. Median age was 60 years, (range, 25-81 years). Thirty-three patients (26.8%) were aged 65 years and older. Most of the women (87%) adhered to the planned G-CSF protocol (days 8 &12). 96% of the patients completed the 4 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Six patients (5%) had dose reductions, 6 (5%) had treatment delays due to non-medical reasons. Thirteen patients (10.6%) experienced at least one event of FN (3 patients had 2 events), all requiring hospitalization. Eight patients (6.5%) required additional support with G-CSF after the first chemotherapy cycle, 7 because of FN and one due to neutropenia and diarrhea. IN
conclusionPrimary prophylactic G-CSF support on days 8 and 12 of the cycle provides a tolerable option to deliver the DC protocol. Our results are in line with other retrospective protocols using longer schedules of GF support.
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.