Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37495949›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2023

Efficacy and safety of PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in preventing chemotherapy-induced-neutropenia in early-stage breast cancer patients.

Yantao Jiang, Ju Zhang, Jianxin Zhong, Hao Liao, Jiayang Zhang, Yaxin Liu, Yuehua Liang, Huiping Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Development and practice of a standardized management pathway for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with gynecological malignancies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yantao JiangDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Ju ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jianxin ZhongDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Hao LiaoDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Jiayang ZhangDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yaxin LiuDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yuehua LiangDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Huiping LiDepartment of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, No. 52, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China. huipingli2012@hotmail.com.
Peking University Cancer Hospital · CNPeking University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Qingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the clinical value of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) and pegylated rhG-CSF(PEG-rhG-CSF) in early-stage breast cancer (EBC) patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, compare the efficacy of PEG-rhG-CSF with different dose and explore the timing of rhG-CSF rescue treatment.

methodsPatients in two PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups were given 3 mg or 6 mg PEG-rhG-CSF within 24 ~ 48 h after chemotherapy for preventing myelosuppression, while patients in the rhG-CSF group were given rhG-CSF. Observation indicators include the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced-neutropenia (CIN), the overall levels and nadir values of white blood cells (WBC) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC), comparison of WBC and ANC curves over time, the incidence of CIN-related complications, the incidence of adverse events in each group and the timing of rescue treatment for rhG-CSF.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the incidence of FN in the first cycle among the groups (P = 0.203). But the incidence of ≥ 3 grade CIN in two PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups was significantly lower than that in the rhG-CSF group (P < 0.001). The overall WBC and ANC levels in the PEG-rhG-CSF group were significantly higher than those in the rhG-CSF group (P < 0.001). In terms of CIN-related complications, less chemotherapy delay rate (1.1 vs. 7.5%, P = 0.092), less dose reduction rate (6.9 vs. 7.5%, P = 1.000), less antibiotic use rate (3.4 vs. 17.5%, P = 0.011) and less proportion of rhG-CSF rescue therapy (24.1 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001) in the PEG-rhG-CSF group, and there were no significant differences between PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups. In the incidence of adverse events among the groups, there were no statistical differences. All patients undergoing rhG-CSF rescue treatment were mainly 4 grade (63.6%) and 3 grade (25.5%) CIN, and 10.9% of patients with 1 ~ 2 grade CIN who had high infection risk or had been infected.

conclusionPEG-rhG-CSF has better efficacy and equal tolerance compared with rhG-CSF in preventing CIN in EBC patients receiving EC regimen. Moreover, a half-dose 3 mg PEG-rhG-CSF also had good efficacy. Last, patients with ≥ 3 grade CIN and others who have been assessed to be at high risk of infection or have co-infection should consider rhG-CSF or even antibiotic rescue treatment.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsNeutropeniaAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansPolyethylene GlycolsRecombinant ProteinsAntineoplastic AgentsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factorpegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factorPolyethylene GlycolsRecombinant ProteinsBreast cancerChemotherapy-induced- neutropeniaFebrile neutropeniaPEG-rhG-CSFrhG-CSF

Identifiers

PMID37495949
PMCPMC10373237
OpenAlexW4385270217

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.