Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2015
An open-label, randomized, multicenter dose-finding study of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy.
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05573386 (A Single Center, Prospective Study to Compare the Quality and Quantity of the Cellular Content of M-PRP Harvested After Peripheral Mobilization of Progenitor Cells Using Filgrastim Versus Pegfilgrastim), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Single Center, Prospective Study to Compare the Quality and Quantity of the Cellular Content of M-PRP Harvested After Peripheral Mobilization of Progenitor Cells Using Filgrastim Versus Pegfilgrastim
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia.Advances in therapy · 2018Pooled it
- The Optimal Timing and Duration of Daily G-CSF for the Primary Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Adjuvant TAC Chemotherapy.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2025Trial
- Review
- COVID-19 Prevention Guidance and the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving TAC Chemotherapy with Prophylactic Pegfilgrastim.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Pegfilgrastim-induced fatigue and leukocytosis improved following dose reduction in a young patient with breast cancer: A case report.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- A randomized multicenter phase II trial of mecapegfilgrastim single administration versus granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor on treating chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- From Synthesis to Characterization of Site-Selective PEGylated Proteins.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A chemotherapy regimen of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) has been accepted as a standard care because of their superior clinical benefit in early-stage breast cancer patients, but with a higher risk of neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle therapy for prophylactic neutrophil support and neutropenia prevention. There was still a lack of direct evidences for finding an optimal fixed dose of pegfilgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC regimen. An open-label, randomized, phase II study was designed to compare the effects of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. Eighteen centers in China enrolled 171 eligible female breast cancer patients with cycles of TAC chemotherapy treatment, randomized into four arms, received a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim (60, 100 or 120 µg/kg) per chemotherapy cycle or daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim 5 µg/kg 24 h after chemotherapy. Efficacy and safety were analyzed. In ITT population, the mean duration of grade 3+ neutropenia (neutrophil count <1.0 × 10(9)/l) was 2.09, 1.53 and 1.73 days in patients who received pegfilgrastim 60, 100 and 120 µg/kg/cycle, respectively, and 1.69 days in patients who received 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim (P = 0.043). The incidence of grade 3+ neutropenia was 76, 83 and 74 % for doses of pegfilgrastim and 90 % for filgrastim (P = 0.409). The results for febrile neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery and neutrophil profile were also not significantly different between arms. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were similar. A single dose of 100 µg/kg once-per-cycle administration of pegfilgrastim provided neutrophil support and a safety profile comparable to daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy.
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.