Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26745973›Full record

Observational studyWiener klinische Wochenschrift2016

Results of a prospective dose intensity and neutropenia prophylaxis evaluation programme (DIEPP) in cancer patients at risk of febrile neutropenia due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Radosław Mądry, Lidia Popławska, Ferdinand Haslbauer, Martin Šafanda, Doru Ghizdavescu, Jana Benkovicova, Tibor Csőszi, Georgi Mihaylov, Daniela Niepel, Christine Jaeger and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Radosław MądryClinic of Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szamarzewskiego 82/84, 60-569, Poznan, Poland. r.madry.mac@gmail.com.
Lidia PopławskaThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland.
Ferdinand HaslbauerLandeskrankenhaus Vöcklabruck, Vöcklabruck, Austria.
Martin ŠafandaNa Homolce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Doru GhizdavescuPloiesti Municipal Hospital, Ploiesti, Romania.
Jana BenkovicovaOncology clinic, St. Vincent s.r.o, Prievidza, Slovak Republic.
Tibor CsősziJász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Hospital, Szolnok, Hungary.
Georgi MihaylovSpecialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Haematological Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Daniela NiepelAmgen GmbH, Head Office for Central & Eastern Europe, Vienna, Austria.
Christine JaegerAmgen Austria GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Iveta FrkanovaAmgen Slovakia s.r.o, Piestany, Slovak Republic.
Alina MacoveiAmgen Romania Srl, Bucharest, Romania.
Christine StaudiglMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and use of pegfilgrastim in cancer patients with high overall risk of FN and to investigate the relationship between granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guideline adherence and chemotherapy delivery in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Austria.

methodsDose Intensity Evaluation Program and Prophylaxis (DIEPP) was a multicentre, prospective, and observational study of adult patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer, gastric cancer, and ovarian cancer, who received chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support and who had an overall risk of FN ≥ 20 %. Physicians assessed patient risk factors and reported their reasons for administering pegfilgrastim.

resultsPatients were enrolled from 113 centres in CEE and Austria between August 2010 and July 2013, and data were analysed from 1072 patients. The most common tumour types were breast cancer (50 %) and lymphoma (24 %). FN incidence was 5 % overall. FN occurred in 3 % of patients (28/875) who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (PP) and 13 % of patients (19/142) who received it as secondary prophylaxis (SP); 79 % of FN events in SP patients occurred in the first cycle before pegfilgrastim was administered. The three most frequently chosen reasons for using pegfilgrastim were planned chemotherapy with high FN risk, female gender, and advanced disease. Overall, 40 % of patients received > 90 % of their planned chemotherapy dose within 3 days of the planned schedule.

conclusionFN incidence was relatively low with pegfilgrastim PP in patients with a physician-assessed overall FN risk of ≥ 20 %. The most important reasons for pegfilgrastim use were consistent with the investigators' risk assessment and international guidelines.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaChemotherapy-Induced Febrile NeutropeniaDose-Response Relationship, DrugEurope, EasternFemaleFilgrastimGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGuideline AdherenceHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsFilgrastimGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorpegfilgrastimPolyethylene GlycolsRecombinant ProteinsChemotherapyFebrile neutropeniaGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorNeoplasmsObservational study

Identifiers

PMID26745973
PMCPMC4861750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.