ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Clinical effect of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia who receive intensive chemotherapy.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundUsing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after completing chemotherapy reduces the duration of neutropenia and infections. However, the efficacy and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients have not yet been evaluated after intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy compared to the daily G-CSF. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pegfilgrastim for ALL patients who received intensive chemotherapy compared with a short-acting G-CSF. PATIENTS AND
methodsClinical data of 145 patients treated with hyper-CVAD, modified VPDL/VPD, or KALLA 1406/1407 regimen were retrospectively evaluated. Pegfilgrastim or the short-acting G-CSF was selected according to the clinician's discretion. Patients not receiving pegfilgrastim were treated with the short-acting G-CSF.
resultsThe median age of enrolled patients was 45 years. Sixty newly diagnosed ALL patients were treated with hyper-CVAD regimen, while KALLA and VPDL regimens were administered to 39 and 46 patients, respectively. Among the 60 patients treated with hyper-CVAD, 20 patients received pegfilgrastim. Patients who received pegfilgrastim had a significantly shorter duration of neutropenia and hospitalization and reduced incidence of severe infections compared to patients receiving the short-acting G-CSF. Consistent results were also confirmed in an analysis targeting only patients who achieved remission during hyper-CVAD induction therapy. There was no significant difference in neutrophil recovery ability and hospitalization duration when the daily short-acting G-CSF was used prophylactically after completing hyper-CVAD, KALLA, and VPDL regimens as induction therapy.
conclusionUsing pegfilgrastim after hyper-CVAD therapy was more effective than the short-acting G-CSF in terms of infection, neutropenia recovery, and hospitalization in patients with newly diagnosed ALL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39377915What 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.