Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30874925›Full record

Observational studySupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019

Filgrastim prophylaxis in elderly cancer patients in the real-life setting: a French multicenter observational study, the TULIP study.

Kamel Laribi, Delphine Badinand, Philippe Janoray, Khaled Benabed, Jean-Loup Mouysset, Elizabeth Fabre, Françoise Monchecourt, Rafik Diab

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kamel LaribiDepartment of Hematology, Le Mans Hospital, Le Mans, France. klaribi@ch-lemans.fr.
Delphine BadinandDepartment of Radiotherapy Oncology, Hospital La Timone, Marseille, France.
Philippe JanorayOncology Institute of Bourgogne, Dijon, France.
Khaled BenabedDepartment of Clinical Hematology, Hospital Côte de Nacre, Caen, France.
Jean-Loup MouyssetDepartment of Chemotherapy, Outpatient Unit, Polyclinic Parc Rambot Provençal, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Elizabeth FabreDepartment of Medical Oncology, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
Françoise MonchecourtTeva Santé, La Défense, France.
Rafik DiabSpecialized Medical Center of Praz-Coutant, Passy, France.
Centre Hospitalier du Mans · FRCentre Hospitalier Public du Cotentin · FRHôpital de la Timone · FRHôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FRInstitut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne · FRMinistère des Armées · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFew studies are currently available among elderly patients, justifying the need for better understanding of daily medical practices in terms of use of growth factors to prevent chemotherapy (CT)-induced neutropenia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the use of filgrastim in the elderly.

methodsCancer patients aged 65 years and above, undergoing CT and initiating a prophylactic treatment with filgrastim, were enrolled. Patients were followed according to routine medical practice from filgrastim initiation until the end of the CT or after a maximum of 6 cycles.

resultsOne thousand one hundred nineteen evaluable patients were documented in the study (mean age 73.9 ± 6.2 years, 52.1% men). The majority were suffering from solid tumor (73%) with ECOG 0-1 for 80% of them. Approximately two-third had a global risk for FN ≥ 20%, and one third < 20%. Through all CT cycles, no differences were observed between age classes ([65-74], [75-85], or > 85) in dose, duration, and time to first injection from CT start. Most patients (84%) received primary prophylaxis (PP) and 70% were administered during the first CT cycle. The median time from CT start until filgrastim was 4 days. The median duration of filgrastim treatment was 5 days. Dose reductions and CT delays were less frequent in patients receiving PP (4.8% and 7.1% respectively) than secondary prophylaxis (9.2% and 13.3% respectively).

conclusionsFilgrastim use was consistent with French Market Authorization terms. No difference was shown compared with younger patients. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleFilgrastimHematologic AgentsHumansMaleNeoplasmsNeutropeniaFilgrastimHematologic AgentsChemotherapy-induced neutropeniaElderly patientsFilgrastimPrimary prophylaxisSecondary prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID30874925
PMCPMC6803566
OpenAlexW2921842455

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.