SynthesisJournal of global oncology2018
Primary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis for Patients Who Receive FEC-D Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of global oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- 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
- Effect of lithium on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in Egyptian breast cancer patients; a prospective clinical study.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2024Trial
- A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Trial
- Male Breast Cancer Complicated With Leukocytosis Resembling Leukemia Reaction After Chemotherapy: A Case Report.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- A retrospective analysis of nadir-neutropenia directed pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia rates in (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy regimens.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2020Article
- Review
- Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed.
methodsEmbase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis.
resultsOf 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported.
conclusionPrimary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.
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.