ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020
The impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy: a single-institution retrospective review.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe goal of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is palliation of symptoms while minimizing treatment-related toxicities. It remains unclear whether use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to maintain relative dose intensity of chemotherapy for MBC is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
methodsThe medical records of MBC patients treated with chemotherapy in 1st-3rd-line settings between May 2010 and April 2014 were reviewed. Time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients who received G-CSF and those who did not. Antibiotic use, total clinic visits, and pre- and post-treatment Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status were also compared between the groups.
resultsOf the 169 patients included, 55 (32.5%) received > 1 G-CSF dose and 114 (67.5%) did not receive any G-CSF. The median TTP was similar between the two groups (5.0 months (95% CI 3.4-7.1) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 4.8-6.2) respectively; p = 0.998). The median PFS (p = 0.955; 5.0 months (95% CI 3.4-5.9) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 4.7-6.0), respectively) and OS (14.6 (95% CI 9.0-26.6) vs. 18.5 months (95% CI 15.2-22.0) in G-CSF and non-G-CSF groups, respectively; p = 0.628) were also similar between groups. No significant between-group differences were noted in rate of decline in ECOG performance status, antibiotic use, and number of clinic visits and hospitalizations.
conclusionThis retrospective analysis did not find any evidence that the use of G-CSF to maintain chemotherapy dose intensity for the treatment of MBC improves TTP, PFS, and OS or results in improved ECOG performance status compared with lack of G-CSF use in patients with MBC treated in 1st to 3rd-line settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32185556What 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.