ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Trilaciclib use in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): are clinical benefits seen in the real-world setting?
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. 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.
- Rewiring the Molecular Interplay of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Lung Cancer: From Cell Cycle Control to Immune Microenvironment Remodeling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The value and safety of trilaciclib in combination with first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC.Immunotherapy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrilaciclib, in comparison to placebo plus carboplatin, etoposide, ± atezolizumab (PEA), has shown significant reductions in incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Despite these findings, real-world utility remains limited.
methodsA single-center quasi-experimental study compared trilaciclib + PEA (PEAT) versus PEA in ES-SCLC patients. The study period ranged from April 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, for the PEAT recipients and February 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, for PEA recipients. The primary endpoint evaluated was incidence of SN after cycle 1 and during the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included measures related to myelopreservation and patient outcomes.
resultsAmong 34 PEAT and 44 PEA patients, baseline characteristics were similar, except for a higher median age (69 vs 64 years) and more males (64.7% vs 38.6%) in the PEAT cohort. The PEAT cohort exhibited a lower SN rate (3%) versus the PEA cohort (18%), with statistical significance demonstrated on multivariate analysis (p = 0.015). Additionally, the PEAT cohort also demonstrated significant reductions in red blood cell transfusion requirements (3% vs 23%; p = 0.02), grade 3-4 anemia (6% vs 25%; p = 0.03), and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (0% vs 11%, p = 0.045).
conclusionTrilaciclib, in combination with PEA, demonstrated an improvement in the safety profile without compromising survival outcomes in ES-SCLC patients. These findings underscore the potential benefits of incorporating trilaciclib in real-world clinical settings for enhanced patient care.
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.