ArticleCancer research and treatment2023
Eflapegrastim versus Pegfilgrastim for Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Korean and Asian Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Results from the Two Phase III ADVANCE and RECOVER Studies.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efbemalenograstim Alfa, an Fc Fusion Protein, Long‑Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Reducing the Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Results of a Phase II Randomized, Multicenter, Open‑Label Trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Trial
- The hidden costs of PEG-rhG-CSF in autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials. Materials and Methods: Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations.
resultsAmong a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: -0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.227 to -0.016), -0.288 (95% CI, -0.714 to 0.143), and -0.267 (95% CI, -0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations.
conclusionThis study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.
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.