Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28785862›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey.

A Brett Hauber, Brennan Mange, Mark A Price, Daniel Wolin, Mark Bensink, James A Kaye, David Chandler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Enhancing patient-centered care: a randomized study on G-CSF administration preferences in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Observational
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. A Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Brett HauberRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Brennan MangeRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Mark A PriceRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. mprice@rti.org.
Daniel WolinRTI Health Solutions, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Mark BensinkAmgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
James A KayeRTI Health Solutions, Waltham, MA, USA.
David ChandlerAmgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
RTI Health Solutions · USAmgen (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough clinical guidelines recommend administration of pegfilgrastim 1-4 days after a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), some physicians administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy administration. A novel on-body injector (OBI) that automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy is also available. Our objective was to estimate patient and physician preferences among the pegfilgrastim administration options.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients receiving pegfilgrastim and physicians prescribing pegfilgrastim. Respondents' preferences for pegfilgrastim administration options were elicited using direct elicitation; the relative importance of features associated with the options was estimated in a point-allocation exercise. Physicians considered two hypothetical patient profiles when completing the exercises.

resultsThe samples included 200 patients and 200 physicians. Patients generally preferred the administration option with which they had experience. Among patients, 48.5% with previous in-clinic injections 24 hours after chemotherapy preferred this option; 56.8% with previous OBI administration preferred this option. For a clinically compromised patient, 37.5% of physicians preferred an in-clinic injection option; 49.5% preferred the OBI. For a less compromised patient, 55.5% preferred an in-clinic injection option; 28.0% preferred the OBI. Avoiding the need to return to the clinic was chosen most often as the most important treatment feature for patients and physicians.

conclusionsPatients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFilgrastimHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPolyethylene GlycolsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultFilgrastimpegfilgrastimPolyethylene GlycolsFebrile neutropeniaPatientPegfilgrastimPhysicianPreference

Identifiers

PMID28785862
OpenAlexW2742653811

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.