Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in primary prophylaxis of early infection in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study sought to compare the efficacy of prophylactic long-acting and standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on febrile neutropenia, early infections, and treatment delay in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving the therapeutic regimen of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd).
methodsA prospective study with 68 consecutive patients with MM was conducted in three regional hospitals. Participants were randomly treated with the VRd regimen in combination with prophylactic long-acting G-CSF (treatment group) or prophylactic standard G-CSF (control group). The primary endpoints were the incidence rates of febrile neutropenia, early infection, and treatment delays. The secondary endpoint was clinical outcomes.
resultsThirty-three patients were assigned to the treatment group, and thirty-five patients were assigned to the control group. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 6.1% and 17.1% in the treatment and control groups, respectively (p = 0.297). However, the rates of early infection and treatment delay were markedly lower in the treatment group than in the control group (6.1% vs. 25.7% and 9.1% vs. 31.4%; p < 0.05). Notably, all early infections occurred during the first four cycles of VRd therapy, and the most common type of infection was pneumonia. No significant difference in clinical efficacy was found between the two groups. All participants achieved at least partial remission.
conclusionsProphylactic administration of domestic long-acting G-CSF markedly reduced the rates of early infection and treatment delay as compared with standard G-CSF in patients newly diagnosed with MM. Notably, all early infections occurred during the first four cycles of VRd therapy. As such, it seems appropriate to administer long-acting G-CSF with the aim of primary prophylaxis of early infection in the setting of newly diagnosed MM.
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.