Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34706865›Full record

ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2021

Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment.

Florian Scotte, Hélène Simon, Philippe Laplaige, Eric-Charles Antoine, Caroline Spasojevic, Nathalie Texier, Karine Gouhier, Christos Chouaid

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Real-world use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in small cell lung cancer: secondary data analysis from the French national cohorts KBP-2020-CPHG and ESCAP-2020-CPHG.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Florian ScotteInterdisciplinary patient pathway department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France florian.scotte@gustaveroussy.fr.
Hélène SimonOncology, CHRU de Brest, Brest, France.
Philippe LaplaigeBlois Polyclinic, La Chaussee Saint Victor, France.
Eric-Charles AntoineOncology Department, Clinique Hartmann, Neuilly, France.
Caroline SpasojevicBoulogne-Billancourt, Île-de-France, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3897-6351
Nathalie TexierKappa Sante, 4 rue de Clery, Paris, France.
Karine GouhierMundipharma France, Paris, France.
Christos ChouaidService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Creteil, Creteil, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4290-5524
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRClinique Hartmann · FRHôpital Intercommunal de Créteil · FRInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRSaint Laurent Polyclinique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFebrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

methodsAttributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers.

resultsOverall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted.

conclusionCost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

cancerhospital caresupportive caresymptoms and symptom management

Identifiers

PMID34706865
PMCPMC11672075
OpenAlexW3208474244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.