ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of etoposide plus PEG-rhG-CSF versus etoposide plus G-CSF for haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Efficient and safe mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells is essential for successful autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Although pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor, (PEG-rhG-CSF) is widely used for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, comparative data on its use with high-dose etoposide (VP-16) for mobilisation remain scarce. In particular, direct comparisons between mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human G-CSF (rhG-CSF) in this setting are lacking. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analysed the efficacy and safety of high-dose VP-16 (1.6 g/m Results: Seventy-one patients were included: 32 received VP-16+PEG-rhG-CSF and 39 received VP-16+rhG-CSF. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mobilisation success exceeded 90% in both groups. However, the PEG-rhG-CSF group achieved a significantly higher total CD34 Conclusions: High-dose VP-16 combined with PEG-rhG-CSF demonstrated superior efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency compared with high-dose VP-16 plus rhG-CSF. These findings suggest that this regimen represents a promising and potentially preferable alternative for haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma.
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.