Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36044088›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Real-world evaluation of supportive care using an electronic health record text-mining tool: G-CSF use in breast cancer patients.

Sylvia A van Laar, Kim B Gombert-Handoko, Sophie Wassenaar, Judith R Kroep, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Juliette Zwaveling

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Sylvia A van LaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Kim B Gombert-HandokoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sophie WassenaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Judith R KroepDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Henk-Jan GuchelaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Juliette ZwavelingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. j.zwaveling@lumc.nl.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeChemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening and chemotherapy dose-limiting adverse event. FN can be prevented with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Guidelines recommend primary G-CSF use for patients receiving either high (> 20%) FN risk (HR) chemotherapy, or intermediate (10-20%) FN risk (IR) chemotherapy if the overall risk with additional patient-related risk factors exceeds 20%. In this study, we applied an EHR text-mining tool for real-world G-CSF treatment evaluation in breast cancer patients.

methodsBreast cancer patients receiving IR or HR chemotherapy treatments between January 2015 and February 2021 at LUMC, the Netherlands, were included. We retrospectively collected data from EHR with a text-mining tool and assessed G-CSF use, risk factors, and the FN and neutropenia (grades 3-4) and incidence.

resultsA total of 190 female patients were included, who received 77 HR and 113 IR treatments. In 88.3% of the HR regimens, G-CSF was administered; 7.3% of these patients developed FN vs. 33.3% without G-CSF. Although most IR regimen patients had ≥ 2 risk factors, only 4% received G-CSF, of which none developed neutropenia. However, without G-CSF, 11.9% developed FN and 31.2% severe neutropenia.

conclusionsOur text-mining study shows high G-CSF use among HR regimen patients, and low use among IR regimen patients, although most had ≥ 2 risk factors. Therefore, current practice is not completely in accordance with the guidelines. This shows the need for increased awareness and clarity regarding risk factors. Also, text-mining can effectively be implemented for the evaluation of patient care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsChemotherapy-Induced Febrile NeutropeniaFebrile NeutropeniaAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsData MiningElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansRetrospective StudiesGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorBreast cancerChemotherapy-induced febrile neutropeniaClinical practice patternGranulocyte-colony stimulating factorText-mining

Identifiers

PMID36044088
PMCPMC9633501
OpenAlexW4293771029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.