↓ Skip to main content

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3842-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matti Aapro, Ralph Boccia, Robert Leonard, Carlos Camps, Mario Campone, Sylvain Choquet, Marco Danova, John Glaspy, Iwona Hus, Hartmut Link, Thamer Sliwa, Hans Tesch, Vicente Valero

Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN. Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach. Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days' filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days' filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days' filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim. In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 9 11%
Professor 8 9%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 22 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2023.
All research outputs
#7,486,435
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,817
of 5,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,546
of 325,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#51
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.