These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9257425)

  • 1. Randomized trial comparing the tolerability of sargramostim (yeast-derived RhuGM-CSF) and filgrastim (bacteria-derived RhuG-CSF) in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
    Beveridge RA; Miller JA; Kales AN; Binder RA; Robert NJ; Heisrath-Evans J; Koczyk-Scripka K; Pashko S; Norgard MJ; Barnes HM; Taylor WR; Thompson KA; Smith LF; Ueno WM; Dobrzynski RF; Warren RD; Katcher D; Byrne PJ; Dunning DM; Winokur SH; Lockey JL; Cambareri RJ; Butler TP; Meister RJ; Fiegert JM
    Support Care Cancer; 1997 Jul; 5(4):289-98. PubMed ID: 9257425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of efficacy of sargramostim (yeast-derived RhuGM-CSF) and filgrastim (bacteria-derived RhuG-CSF) in the therapeutic setting of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.
    Beveridge RA; Miller JA; Kales AN; Binder RA; Robert NJ; Harvey JH; Windsor K; Gore I; Cantrell J; Thompson KA; Taylor WR; Barnes HM; Schiff SA; Shields JA; Cambareri RJ; Butler TP; Meister RJ; Feigert JM; Norgard MJ; Moraes MA; Helvie WW; Patton GA; Mundy LJ; Henry D; Sheridan MJ
    Cancer Invest; 1998; 16(6):366-73. PubMed ID: 9679526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative safety of filgrastim versus sargramostim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
    Milkovich G; Moleski RJ; Reitan JF; Dunning DM; Gibson GA; Paivanas TA; Wyant S; Jacobs RJ
    Pharmacotherapy; 2000 Dec; 20(12):1432-40. PubMed ID: 11130215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for neutropenic complications in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
    Weycker D; Malin J; Barron R; Edelsberg J; Kartashov A; Oster G
    Am J Clin Oncol; 2012 Jun; 35(3):267-74. PubMed ID: 21378538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
    Heaney ML; Toy EL; Vekeman F; Laliberté F; Dority BL; Perlman D; Barghout V; Duh MS
    Cancer; 2009 Oct; 115(20):4839-48. PubMed ID: 19637341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Formulary management of colony-stimulating factors.
    Whalen CR; Watson TL; Baize T; Ball A
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2002 Apr; 59(7 Suppl 2):S21-7. PubMed ID: 11944611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Randomized trial of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the harvesting of peripheral-blood stem cells.
    Weaver CH; Schulman KA; Wilson-Relyea B; Birch R; West W; Buckner CD
    J Clin Oncol; 2000 Jan; 18(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 10623692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of sargramostim and filgrastim in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
    Stull DM; Bilmes R; Kim H; Fichtl R
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2005 Jan; 62(1):83-7. PubMed ID: 15658078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical applications of colony-stimulating factors: a historical perspective.
    Sylvester RK
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2002 Apr; 59(7 Suppl 2):S6-12. PubMed ID: 11944613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells following myelosuppressive chemotherapy: a randomized comparison of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim.
    Weaver CH; Schulman KA; Buckner CD
    Bone Marrow Transplant; 2001 May; 27 Suppl 2():S23-9. PubMed ID: 11436117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Immediate hypersensitivity to human recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor associated with a positive prick skin test reaction.
    Engler RJ; Weiss RB
    Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol; 1996 Jun; 76(6):531-4. PubMed ID: 8673688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia: a retrospective study.
    Tan H; Tomic K; Hurley D; Daniel G; Barron R; Malin J
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2011 Jan; 27(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 21091127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Drug formulary review process for sargramostim and filgrastim: focus on analysis of adverse drug reactions.
    Kellihan MJ
    Clin Ther; 1993; 15(5):927-37. PubMed ID: 7505717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of a formulary change from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on outcomes in patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
    Wong SF; Chan HO
    Pharmacotherapy; 2005 Mar; 25(3):372-8. PubMed ID: 15843284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.
    Blackwell K; Donskih R; Jones CM; Nixon A; Vidal MJ; Nakov R; Singh P; Schaffar G; Gascón P; Harbeck N
    Oncologist; 2016 Jul; 21(7):789-94. PubMed ID: 27091420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Randomized double-blind prospective trial to evaluate the effects of sargramostim versus placebo in a moderate-dose fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy program for stage II and III breast cancer.
    Jones SE; Schottstaedt MW; Duncan LA; Kirby RL; Good RH; Mennel RG; George TK; Snyder DA; Watkins DL; Denham CA; Hoyes FA; Rubin AS
    J Clin Oncol; 1996 Nov; 14(11):2976-83. PubMed ID: 8918495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of the potency of glycosylated and nonglycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in neutropenic and nonneutropenic CD rats.
    Nohynek GJ; Plard JP; Wells MY; Zerial A; Roquet F
    Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 1997; 39(3):259-66. PubMed ID: 8996530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever by administration of colony-stimulating factors.
    Mayordomo JI; Rivera F; Díaz-Puente MT; Lianes P; Colomer R; López-Brea M; López E; Paz-Ares L; Hitt R; García-Ribas I
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1995 Jun; 87(11):803-8. PubMed ID: 7540696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The clinical utility of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: early achievements and future promise.
    Morstyn G; Foote M; Perkins D; Vincent M
    Stem Cells; 1994; 12 Suppl 1():213-27; discussion 227-8. PubMed ID: 7535147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
    Weycker D; Barron RL
    Cancer; 2010 Jun; 116(12):3073; author reply 3073-4. PubMed ID: 20564415
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.