Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33547525›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Outcomes of primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced and febrile neutropenia in bendamustine plus rituximab regimens in patients with lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: real-world, single-center experience.

Logan Moore, Trace Bartels, Daniel O Persky, Ivo Abraham, Abhijeet Kumar, Ali McBride

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Logan MooreCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin, PO Box 210202, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Trace BartelsCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin, PO Box 210202, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Daniel O PerskyThe University of Arizona Cancer Center/Banner-University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Ivo AbrahamCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin, PO Box 210202, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Abhijeet KumarThe University of Arizona Cancer Center/Banner-University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Ali McBrideCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin, PO Box 210202, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. alimcbride@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9430-4675
University of Arizona · USBanner - University Medical Center Tucson · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the outcomes associated with granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) administered as primary versus secondary prophylaxis in setting of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) regimens.

methodsEighty-five patients who underwent treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with BR at the University of Arizona Cancer Center from November 2013 to June 2019 were evaluated through retrospective chart review. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who were given G-CSF for primary prophylaxis (n = 47) and for secondary prophylaxis (n = 38). G-CSF-included filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. The primary endpoints were incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia.

resultsSame-day G-CSF compared with next-day G-CSF was the most common G-CSF dosing method utilized in primary and secondary prophylaxis (94% and 100%), respectively. Primary and secondary prophylaxis groups were similar on baseline characteristics (p > 0.05); the primary outcome of FN (p > 0.05); all secondary outcomes (p > 0.05) except for a higher frequency of dose delays in secondary (40%) vs primary prophylaxis patients (13%; p = 0.01), and mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) in cycles 1 through 5. With higher ANC levels observed during all cycles in the primary prophylaxis group compared with secondary prophylaxis.

conclusionsIn this single-center retrospective study, BR-treated lymphoma and CLL patients receiving primary versus secondary with G-CSF showed similar outcomes except, notably, for chemotherapy dose delays that may put secondary patients at risk for poor treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of primary versus secondary prophylaxis on treatment outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBendamustine HydrochlorideFebrile NeutropeniaFemaleHumansIncidenceLeukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-CellLymphoma, Non-HodgkinMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRituximabTreatment OutcomeBendamustine HydrochlorideRituximabBendamustineFebrile neutropeniaPegfilgrastimRituximabSame-day pegfilgrastim

Identifiers

PMID33547525
OpenAlexW3128936999

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.