ArticleCancer medicine2015
Assessing patients' risk of febrile neutropenia: is there a correlation between physician-assessed risk and model-predicted risk?
Article in Cancer medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study.JCO global oncology · 2022Trial
- Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2021Trial
- Mitigating acute chemotherapy-associated adverse events in patients with cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Real-world evaluation of supportive care using an electronic health record text-mining tool: G-CSF use in breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of DoceAqualip in a patient with locally advanced cervical cancer: A case report.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2018Article
- Pathway-Based Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Data Identified SNPs inFrontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Use of prophylactic growth factors and antimicrobials in elderly patients with cancer: a review of the Medicare database.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Article
- Predicting neutropenia risk in patients with cancer using electronic data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- The impact of chemotherapy dose intensity and supportive care on the risk of febrile neutropenia in patients with early stage breast cancer: a prospective cohort study.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the correlation between the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) estimated by physicians and the risk of severe neutropenia or FN predicted by a validated multivariate model in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving chemotherapy. Before patient enrollment, physician and site characteristics were recorded, and physicians self-reported the FN risk at which they would typically consider granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (FN risk intervention threshold). For each patient, physicians electronically recorded their estimated FN risk, orders for G-CSF primary prophylaxis (yes/no), and patient characteristics for model predictions. Correlations between physician-assessed FN risk and model-predicted risk (primary endpoints) and between physician-assessed FN risk and G-CSF orders were calculated. Overall, 124 community-based oncologists registered; 944 patients initiating chemotherapy with intermediate FN risk enrolled. Median physician-assessed FN risk over all chemotherapy cycles was 20.0%, and median model-predicted risk was 17.9%; the correlation was 0.249 (95% CI, 0.179-0.316). The correlation between physician-assessed FN risk and subsequent orders for G-CSF primary prophylaxis (n = 634) was 0.313 (95% CI, 0.135-0.472). Among patients with a physician-assessed FN risk ≥ 20%, 14% did not receive G-CSF orders. G-CSF was not ordered for 16% of patients at or above their physician's self-reported FN risk intervention threshold (median, 20.0%) and was ordered for 21% below the threshold. Physician-assessed FN risk and model-predicted risk correlated weakly; however, there was moderate correlation between physician-assessed FN risk and orders for G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Further research and education on FN risk factors and appropriate G-CSF use are needed.
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.