MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414049827 · doi:10.1093/dote/doaf061.252

454. EFFICACY OF PEGFILGRASTIM IN PREVENTING FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA DURING DCF CHEMOTHERAPY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2025· article· en· W4414049827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khaled Hemdan, Rana El Tabakh, Ziad Elmezayen, Amr Yousef, Ahmed Hussein, Ali Elghareab, Mohammad Shehata, Alaa Ellethey, Ahmed Oun

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegfilgrastimFebrile neutropeniaNeutropeniaPlaceboIncidence (geometry)ChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialFilgrastim

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Esophageal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) chemotherapy being a standard treatment option for locally advanced disease. However, DCF is associated with a high incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), a serious complication that can lead to treatment delays, hospitalizations, and increased morbidity. Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is recommended for FN prevention, but its efficacy in esophageal cancer patients receiving DCF chemotherapy remains unclear. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified eligible studies. Retrospective and prospective studies comparing prophylactic pegfilgrastim with placebo or no G-CSF in patients undergoing DCF therapy were included. Eight reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The extracted data were then verified by two additional reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled effect sizes. Results Pooled analysis showed that pegfilgrastim significantly reduced FN incidence (OR = 0.283, 95% CI: 0.102–0.782, p = 0.015). FN rates ranged from 3.3% to 30.8% in the pegfilgrastim group versus 26.7% to 60.6% in the control group. Pegfilgrastim was also associated with lower rates of severe neutropenia and shorter hospital stays, with no significant increase in adverse events. Conclusion In our study, Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis significantly reduces FN risk, severe neutropenia, and hospital stays in esophageal cancer patients receiving DCF chemotherapy, without increasing major complications. These findings support its routine use in this population, though further prospective randomized trials are needed to optimize dosing strategies and confirmlong-term benefits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207