Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26939922›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

Impact of an electronic tool in prescribing primary prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy.

Jeffrey Sulpher, Pierre Giguere, Sean Hopkins, Susan Dent

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey SulpherDivision of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Pierre GiguereDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Sean HopkinsDepartment of Pharmacy, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Susan DentDivision of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. sdent@ottawahospital.on.ca.
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US Oncology Trial 9735 (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) versus docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC)) reported febrile neutropenia (FN) in 5 % of patients receiving TC chemotherapy, in the absence of routine primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. In contrast, higher rates of FN have been reported in the 'real world' setting. This retrospective study compares the incidence and severity of FN and other TC-related toxicities before and after implementation of a primary prophylaxis computerized prescribing tool.

methodsMedical records of 207 patients receiving adjuvant TC between May 1, 2006, and November 1, 2011, were reviewed for toxicity. The incidence for each TC adverse event was measured by an incident rate ratio (IRR), and chi-square analysis was used to compare the differences in severity of TC toxicities before and after use of a primary prophylaxis computerized prescribing tool, and to compare G-CSF and ciprofloxacin groups.

resultsThe implementation of a computerized prescribing tool significantly increased the proportion of patients prescribed primary prophylaxis (18.2 vs. 97.4 %; p < 0.001). Prior to the change in practice, the incidence of FN (incidence rate ratio 3.87; 95 % CI [1.3, 11.5]) and neutropenia (OR 4.8; 95 % CI [2.0, 11.7]) was significantly higher. Primary prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of febrile neutropenia (20 vs. 5.3 %, p = 0.003). No significant differences were found in incidence and severity of other TC-related toxicities. Patients who did not receive G-CSF were at a greater risk for neutropenia (OR 5.1, 95 % CI [1.06, 24.3]). There were insufficient patients treated with antibiotics alone to compare to those treated with G-CSF.

conclusionsImplementation of a computerized prescribing tool significantly increased the use of primary prophylaxis by treating physicians in patients receiving TC chemotherapy, which was associated with reduced incidence of febrile neutropenia. Further research efforts should focus on the incorporation and routine use of evidence-based practices using tools such as alerts and prompts, in order to optimize patient care and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCiprofloxacinFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansMiddle AgedCiprofloxacinGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorCiprofloxacinGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorPrimary prophylaxisTC chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID26939922
OpenAlexW2291025253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.