ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020
Risk assessment of febrile neutropenia and evaluation of G-CSF use in patients with cancer: a real-life study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Acupuncture in Relieving Chemotherapy-induced Leukopenia in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review With A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Integrative cancer therapiesPooled it
- Real-world use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in small cell lung cancer: secondary data analysis from the French national cohorts KBP-2020-CPHG and ESCAP-2020-CPHG.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Case Report: Analysis of short-term clinical efficacy of trilaciclib in patients with advanced lung neuroendocrine carcinoma undergoing chemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Health professionals' preferences with the use of pegfilgrastim on-body injector at oncology centers in 8 cities in Colombia.BMC health services research · 2023Observational
- Supportive therapies in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and appropriate use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: a Delphi consensus statement.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2021Article
- Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-led Interventions in TurkeyTurkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe guidelines suggest using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) as prophylaxis in chemotherapy protocols with the risk of 10-20% after assessment of patient's risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the risk of FN by using the Patient Risk Score (PRS) and evaluating G-CSF use and its side effects by a clinical pharmacist at an outpatient clinic.
methodsThe study was conducted from May 2017 until November 2017 at the University Hospital oncology outpatient clinic. Patients who receive chemotherapy protocols with FN risk of 10-20% and > 20% and were initiated G-CSF were included. The patients' risk factors were assessed by the PRS, and the side effects were monitored for 3 months by a clinical pharmacist via a patient self-reported monitoring card.
resultsA total of 118 patients were included (286 interviews) in the study. There was a significant increase between the first and third visits on the PRS total scores of patients (p = 0.034). The patterns of G-CSF use showed that 34.7% undertreated, 22.8% overtreated, and 42.3% of patients were correctly treated for the prophylaxis. The severity of G-CSF-related musculoskeletal pain was increased on the second and third days of treatment.
conclusionsThe use of G-CSFs for FN prophylaxis is recommended; however, there may be a group of patients who are inadequately or unnecessarily treated. Therefore, patients should be assessed for the risk of developing FN in each cycle of chemotherapy and a regular risk assessment by using the PRS can be implemented in the monitoring process.
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.