ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness and safety of pegylated filgrastim (Pelgraz®) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy in all-day practice in Germany.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Observational
- Improved risk prediction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-model development and validation with real-world data.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- A questionnaire survey on evaluation for penetration and compliance of the Japanese Guideline on Febrile Neutropenia among hematology-oncology physicians and surgeons.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) initiated "same-day" (< 24 h), "per-guidelines" (24-72 h), and "late" (> 72 h): findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
- G-CSF guideline adherence in Germany, an update with a retrospective and representative sample survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
- Article
- Safety Profile of Biosimilar Filgrastim (Zarzio/Zarxio): A Combined Analysis of Phase III Studies.The oncologist · 2018Article
- Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.
methodsMONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).
resultsDifferences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).
conclusionsThe real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.
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.