ArticleThoracic cancer2023
Safety and efficacy of amrubicin with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim as second-line chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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.
- Article
- Safety and efficacy of amrubicin with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim as second-line chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmrubicin (AMR) regimens have shown efficacy as second-line treatment in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC); however, adverse events such as febrile neutropenia (FN) sometimes preclude their use. Further, the safety and efficacy of AMR with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim (P-PEG) have not been sufficiently evaluated. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AMR with or without P-PEG as second-line chemotherapy for SCLC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with SCLC who received AMR as second-line chemotherapy at Shizuoka Cancer Center, between December 2014 and November 2021. Based on presence/absence of P-PEG in their regimen, patients (n = 60) were divided into P-PEG (n = 21) and non-P-PEG groups, and their clinical outcomes were evaluated.
resultsMedian of AMR treatment cycles was five (range: 1-39 cycles) in P-PEG group and four (range: 1-15 cycles) in non-P-PEG group. The incidence of FN (4.8% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.02) and AMR dose reduction because of adverse events (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.08) were lower in the P-PEG group than in the non-P-PEG group. The objective response rates were 52.4% and 30.8%, and median progression-free and overall survival were 4.7 and 3.0 months, and 9.6 and 6.8 months, in the P-PEG and non-P-PEG groups, respectively.
conclusionsAMR with P-PEG as second-line chemotherapy for SCLC reduced the incidence of FN at a maintained AMR dose intensity and was associated with favorable tumor responses and survival outcomes. P-PEG should be considered for patients treated with AMR for SCLC including refractory relapsed SCLC.
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.