Trial reportScientific reports2025
An open-label, randomized study comparing lipegfilgrastim with filgrastim in pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma or rhabdomyosarcoma.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim with filgrastim in pediatric patients. Children and adolescents receiving chemotherapy (4 cycles) for Ewing sarcoma or rhabdomyosarcoma were randomized 1:1 to lipegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg) once per cycle or filgrastim (5 µg/kg), once daily for ≥ 5 days for up to 14 days or until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery. In 39 evaluable patients, no meaningful difference was observed between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim treatment groups in duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; mean [standard deviation]) in cycle 1 (2.7 [2.25] vs. 2.5 [2.09] days); least squares mean treatment difference (lipegfilgrastim minus filgrastim) 1.0 day (95% CI: -0.21,2.26) or cycles 2-4, duration of very severe neutropenia in cycles 1-4, incidence of severe neutropenia (85% vs. 84%) or very severe neutropenia (70% vs. 68%). The incidence of febrile neutropenia was numerically lower with lipegfilgrastim (35%) vs. filgrastim (42%). Mean area under the curve of ANC until day 15 in cycle 1 was numerically higher with lipegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim (105 × 10
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.