Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31700918›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial.

Fengrui Xu, Yang Zhang, Zhanhui Miao, Xiaohua Zeng, Biao Wu, Li Cai, Jinping Liu, Shusen Wang, Xichun Hu, Wenbo Zheng and 3 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Fengrui XuDepartment of Breast Oncology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100071, China.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Breast Surgery, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng 252000, China.
Zhanhui MiaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang University, Xinxiang 453100, China.
Xiaohua ZengDepartment of Breast Surgery, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing 400030, China.
Biao WuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, China.
Li CaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin 150081, China.
Jinping LiuDepartment of Breast Surgery, Sichuan Province People's Hospital, Chengdu 610072, China.
Shusen WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhongshan University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xichun HuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China.
Wenbo ZhengDepartment of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Zhiyue ChenDepartment of Research and Development, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200120, China.
Qing YangDepartment of Research and Development, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200120, China.
Zefei JiangDepartment of Breast Oncology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100071, China.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CNAcademy of Military Medical Sciences · CNChongqing Cancer Hospital · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNFourth People's Hospital of Sichuan Province · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNLiaocheng People's Hospital · CNNanchang University · CNThird Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University · CNXinxiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim.

methodsThis was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized assigned into three groups to receive mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg, mecapegfilgrastim fixed dose of 6 mg or filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in the first cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycle 1. The secondary endpoints included the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycles 2-4, incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia (FN). The safety profile was also evaluated.

resultsThe mean duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.26] days in mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg group, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.88) days in mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg group, and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.46) days in the filgrastim group. The mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg and filgrastim was -1.00 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.48), the mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg and filgrastim was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.30). The upper bounds of 95% CI for the difference between mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim were all <1 day (the predefined non-inferiority margin). For the incidence of grade ≥3 and grade 4 neutropenia, the mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia, mecapegfilgrastim showed better performance compared with filgrastim. For the incidence of FN, there was no difference between patients treated with mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim. For safety profile, mecapegfilgrastim of two doses groups were all well-tolerated. Fixed 6 mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim exhibited comparable efficacy and safety in comparison with 100 µg/kg during 4 cycles.

conclusionsLong-acting mecapegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg and fixed 6 mg) is very effective and well tolerated when administered in the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and in consecutive-cycle treatment. In some clinical parameters, mecafilgrastim is non-inferior and even superior to filgrastim. The fixed 6 mg-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and safety profile compared with 100 µg/kg regimen, and would be the preference in clinical practice, due to the convenient once-per-cycle administration and high-degree treatment compliance for the patients. This study provided new evidence for the novel long-acting rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim, which would be a new alternative for clinical practice for prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.

Indexed as

Breast cancerfilgrastimlong-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (long-acting G-CSF)mecapegfilgrastim

Identifiers

PMID31700918
PMCPMC6803220
OpenAlexW2971330481

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.