Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34533681›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2021

Systematic review and meta-analysis of febrile neutropenia risk with TCH(P) in HER2-positive breast cancer.

Hannah Van Belle, Sara A Hurvitz, Peter J Gilbar, Hans Wildiers

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Hannah Van BelleFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8897-4229
Sara A HurvitzDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7808-7191
Peter J GilbarCancer Care Services, Toowoomba Hospital, Toowoomba, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7748-1891
Hans WildiersDepartment of General Medical Oncology and Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. hans.wildiers@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8990-7837
KU Leuven · BEThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDocetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab, with or without pertuzumab (TCH(P)), has become the preferred (neo)adjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer. However, its associated febrile neutropenia (FN) risk is unclear: pivotal studies reported FN risks < 10%, but in clinical practice, a high FN rate (> 20%) was observed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determine the FN risk associated with TCH(P) and the indication for primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PP G-CSF).

methodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for full-text English articles reporting the FN incidence in early breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant TCH(P). The primary endpoint was the pooled crude FN incidence in patients treated without PP G-CSF using the random effects method. Secondary endpoints were the FN risk with PP G-CSF support, age-related differences in FN and differences in risk with TCH versus TCHP.

resultsSeventeen studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled estimates of FN incidences were 27.6% (95% CI 18.6 to 37.1) in patients who did not receive PP G-CSF (primary meta-analysis, 9 studies, n = 889) versus 5.0% (95% CI 2.6 to 8.0) in patients administered PP G-CSF (secondary meta-analysis, 7 studies, n = 445). Two studies reported non-significant age-related differences in FN. The risk comparison between TCH and TCHP was inconclusive.

conclusionsThe crude FN risk associated with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P) is over 20%, the upper limit above which the international guidelines unanimously advise PP G-CSF administration. G-CSF prophylaxis effectively reduces FN risk and should become the standard of care with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P).

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFebrile NeutropeniaAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDocetaxelFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansDocetaxelGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorBreast neoplasmsCarboplatinDocetaxelFebrile neutropeniaGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorNeoadjuvant therapy

Identifiers

PMID34533681
OpenAlexW3200281090

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.