258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33113628)
1. [Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG-rhG-CSF in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in China].
Xia W; Wang SS; Hu H; Zhao FL; Xu F; Hong RX; Jiang KK; Yuan ZY; Shi YX; Zhao K; Huang JJ; Xue C; Bi XW; Lu QY; An X; Zhang JM
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2020 Oct; 42(10):861-867. PubMed ID: 33113628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Fust K; Li X; Maschio M; Villa G; Parthan A; Barron R; Weinstein MC; Somers L; Hoefkens C; Lyman GH
Pharmacoeconomics; 2017 Apr; 35(4):425-438. PubMed ID: 27928760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving FEC-D.
Lee EK; Wong WW; Trudeau ME; Chan KK
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Feb; 150(1):169-80. PubMed ID: 25694355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Is febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors economically justified for adjuvant TC chemotherapy in breast cancer?
Skedgel C; Rayson D; Younis T
Support Care Cancer; 2016 Jan; 24(1):387-394. PubMed ID: 26081595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PEG-rhG-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis to Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Women With Breast Cancer in China: Results Based on Real-World Data.
Zhao J; Qiao G; Liang Y; Li J; Hu W; Zuo X; Li J; Zhao C; Zhang X; Du S
Front Pharmacol; 2021; 12():754366. PubMed ID: 35185534
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK.
Liu Z; Doan QV; Malin J; Leonard R
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2009; 7(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 19799473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.
Hill G; Barron R; Fust K; Skornicki ME; Taylor DC; Weinstein MC; Lyman GH
J Med Econ; 2014 Jan; 17(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 24028444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia During Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.
Yu JL; Chan K; Kurin M; Pasetka M; Kiss A; Sridhar SS; Warner E
Breast J; 2015; 21(6):658-64. PubMed ID: 26387577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia.
Aarts MJ; Grutters JP; Peters FP; Mandigers CM; Dercksen MW; Stouthard JM; Nortier HJ; van Laarhoven HW; van Warmerdam LJ; van de Wouw AJ; Jacobs EM; Mattijssen V; van der Rijt CC; Smilde TJ; van der Velden AW; Temizkan M; Batman E; Muller EW; van Gastel SM; Joore MA; Borm GF; Tjan-Heijnen VC
J Clin Oncol; 2013 Dec; 31(34):4283-9. PubMed ID: 24166522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy.
Wang XJ; Tang T; Farid M; Quek R; Tao M; Lim ST; Wee HL; Chan A
PLoS One; 2016; 11(2):e0148901. PubMed ID: 26871584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.
Fust K; Li X; Maschio M; Barron R; Weinstein MC; Parthan A; Walli-Attaei M; Chandler DB; Lyman GH
Gynecol Oncol; 2014 Jun; 133(3):446-53. PubMed ID: 24657302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy.
Chan KK; Siu E; Krahn MD; Imrie K; Alibhai SM
J Clin Oncol; 2012 Apr; 30(10):1064-71. PubMed ID: 22393098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of emergency treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia by pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF).
Huang X; Li S; Shi W; Wang Y; Wan X; He J; Xu Y; Zhang W; Shi X; Chen R; Xu L; Zha X; Wang J
Br J Clin Pharmacol; 2023 Jan; 89(1):372-379. PubMed ID: 36001055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cost-effectiveness of febrile neutropenia prevention with primary versus secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review.
Younis T; Rayson D; Jovanovic S; Skedgel C
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2016 Oct; 159(3):425-32. PubMed ID: 27572552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer after chemotherapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany].
Sehouli J; Goertz A; Steinle T; Dubois R; Plesnila-Frank C; Lalla A; von Minckwitz G
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2010 Mar; 135(9):385-9. PubMed ID: 20180162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.
Ramsey SD; Liu Z; Boer R; Sullivan SD; Malin J; Doan QV; Dubois RW; Lyman GH
Value Health; 2009; 12(2):217-25. PubMed ID: 18673353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.
Aapro MS; Chaplin S; Cornes P; Howe S; Link H; Koptelova N; Mehl A; Di Palma M; Schroader BK; Terkola R
Support Care Cancer; 2023 Sep; 31(10):581. PubMed ID: 37728795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom.
Whyte S; Cooper KL; Stevenson MD; Madan J; Akehurst R
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):465-74. PubMed ID: 21669371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Advantages with prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy: an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study.
Xie J; Cao J; Wang JF; Zhang BH; Zeng XH; Zheng H; Zhang Y; Cai L; Wu YD; Yao Q; Zhao XC; Mao WD; Jiang AM; Chen SS; Yang SE; Wang SS; Wang JH; Pan YY; Ren BY; Chen YJ; Ouyang LZ; Lei KJ; Gao JH; Huang WH; Huang Z; Shou T; He YL; Cheng J; Sun Y; Li WM; Cui SD; Wang X; Rao ZG; Ma H; Liu W; Wu XY; Shen WX; Cao FL; Xiao ZM; Wu B; Tian SY; Meng D; Shen P; Wang BY; Wang Z; Zhang J; Wang L; Hu XC
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Apr; 168(2):389-399. PubMed ID: 29230663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia.
Clemons M; Fergusson D; Joy AA; Thavorn K; Meza-Junco J; Hiller JP; Mackey J; Ng T; Zhu X; Ibrahim MFK; Sienkiewicz M; Saunders D; Vandermeer L; Pond G; Basulaiman B; Awan A; Pitre L; Nixon NA; Hutton B; Hilton JF;
Breast; 2021 Aug; 58():42-49. PubMed ID: 33901921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
