SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020
Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multicenter phase II trial of primary prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF in pediatric patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma after chemotherapy: An interim analysis.Cancer medicine · 2023Trial
- Article
- PEGylated Proteins: How Much Does Molecular Weight Matter?Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2025Review
- The hidden costs of PEG-rhG-CSF in autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Male Breast Cancer Complicated With Leukocytosis Resembling Leukemia Reaction After Chemotherapy: A Case Report.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in supporting neutrophil recovery after induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the management of breast cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in preventing chemotherapy-induced-neutropenia in early-stage breast cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Review
- Phase 1/2 Study of the Timing and Efficacy of 3 mg Peg-GCSF in Neo/Adjuvant Dose Dense Breast Cancer Treatment Protocols.South Asian journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Role of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor recurrence.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2023Review
- Liposomal eribulin for advanced adenoid cystic carcinoma, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, and small cell lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- 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
- Effects of Prophylactic Administration of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor on Peripheral Leukocyte and Neutrophil Counts Levels After Chemotherapy in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-acting G-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis of Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients, From a Retrospective Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.
objectivesTo assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.
resultsNine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).
conclusionPEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.
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.