Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01813721
Registration number
NCT01813721
Ethics application status
Date submitted
8/01/2013
Date registered
19/03/2013
Date last updated
15/03/2017
Titles & IDs
Public title
Study Investigating How Physicians Assess the Risk of Patients Developing Febrile Neutropenia During Chemotherapy.
Query!
Scientific title
Study to Investigate Which Clinical Risk Factors Are Considered by Physicians When Conducting Overall Febrile Neutropenia Risk Assessments for Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With an Intermediate (10% - 20%) Febrile Neutropenia Risk.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
20110146
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Chemotherapy-induced Febrile Neutropenia
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Blood
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other blood disorders
Query!
Injuries and Accidents
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other injuries and accidents
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Observational
Query!
Patient registry
Query!
Target follow-up duration
Query!
Target follow-up type
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Group 1 - All patients enrolled
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Age and Chemotherapy Regimen as a Risk Factor for Febrile Neutropenia
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of risk factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the risk factors that they considered to be the most important when assessing overall febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. Age and chemotherapy regimen were specified in the protocol as risk factors of interest. Reported are age and chemotherapeutic agents ranked individually, chemotherapy agents detailed by specific factors, and age and chemotherapy agents jointly ranked. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline (prior to participant enrolment)
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor as a Risk Factor for Febrile Neutropenia (FN)
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of risk factors on a source document worksheet and asked to rank the risk factors that they considered to be the most important when assessing overall FN risk. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Assessed at Baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Age and Chemotherapy Regimen Were Ranked as an Important Risk Factor
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment were collected in this study. Age and chemotherapy regimen were specified in the protocol as risk factors of interest. Reported are age and chemotherapeutic agents ranked individually, chemotherapy agents detailed by specific factors, and age and chemotherapy agents jointly ranked. To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation
Query!
Primary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study. To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor in the Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Primary Prophylaxis (PP) Decision as Important
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the factors that they considered to be the most important when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Assessed at baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Clinical Specialty
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the factors that they considered to be the most important when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Subgroup analyses were performed where a subgroup contained at least 40 investigators. Results are reported for medical oncologists as this was the only specialty that contained at least 40 investigators.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Assessed at baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Number of Years in Clinical Practice in Oncology / Hematology
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the factors that they considered to be the most important when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed where a subgroup contained at least 40 investigators. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Assessed at baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Institution Type
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the factors that they considered to be the most important when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed where a subgroup contained at least 40 investigators. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Assessed at baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Primary Prophylaxis (PP) Decision as Important
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not. To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Country
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the risk factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Clinical Specialty
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the risk factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Number of Years in Clinical Practice in Oncology / Hematology
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the risk factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Institution Type
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the risk factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each Factor Was Ranked in the G-CSF PP Decision as Important by Tumor Type
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
For each participant, the investigator ranked the risk factors that they considered to be the most important factors that they considered when deciding whether to use G-CSF PP treatment or not.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor as a Risk Factor for Febrile Neutropenia by Clinical Specialty
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of risk factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rankt the risk factors that they considered to be the most important when assessing overall FN risk. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Subgroup analyses were performed where a subgroup contained at least 40 investigators. Results are reported for medical oncologists as this was the only specialty that contained at least 40 investigators.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
Assessed at Baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor as a Risk Factor for Febrile Neutropenia by Number of Years in Clinical Practice in Oncology / Hematology
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of risk factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the risk factors that they considered to be the most important when assessing overall FN risk. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Assessed at Baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Percentage of Investigators Who Ranked Each Factor as a Risk Factor for Febrile Neutropenia by Institution Type
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
During the baseline investigator assessment (prior to identification of participants), investigators were provided a list of risk factors on a source document worksheet, and asked to rank the factors that they considered to be the most important when assessing overall FN risk. To account for the expected correlation between investigators at the same sites, two-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
Assessed at Baseline, prior to participant enrolment.
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important by Country
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important by Clinical Specialty
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important by Number of Years in Clinical Practice in Oncology / Hematology
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important by Institution Type
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Percentage of Participants for Whom Each FN Risk Factor Was Ranked as Important by Tumor Type
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
Investigators ranked the risk factors they considered to be the most important when assessing the overall risk of febrile neutopenia for each participant. Only historical patient information recorded before the beginning of chemotherapy treatment was collected in this study.
To account for the expected correlation between participants with the same investigators and between investigators at the same sites, three-level, empty (no explanatory variables) multilevel models were used in the estimation of the percentages and 95% confidence intervals.
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
At enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With an Investigator-assessed FN Risk at or Above the Investigator Self-reported FN-risk Intervention Threshold Who Were Planned to Receive G-CSF PP
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
At Baseline investigators recorded the FN risk threshold score at which they would use G-CSF PP in their usual clinical practice. For each enrolled participant, the investigator documented their final estimated FN risk score as a percentage based on the participant's medical history and standard of care assessments (their routine practice for assessing this risk), and a decision as to whether G-CSF PP would be administered in Cycle 1.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
At Baseline and at enrolment, prior to chemotherapy initiation.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* Age = 18 years old
* Any stage NHL, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or breast cancer initiating a new chemotherapy course
* Scheduled to receive one of the permitted standard dose chemotherapy regimens with an estimated intermediate (10%-20%) FN risk according to published data or guidelines (planned dose modifications +/-10% are allowable).
* Before any study-specific procedure, the appropriate written informed consent must be obtained where this is required by local regulations
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
* Ongoing or planned concurrent participation in any clinical study involving Investigational Product that has not been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or competent authority for any indication,
* Ongoing or planned concurrent participation in any clinical study where the administration of Colony Stimulating Factor (CSF) is determined by the protocol (clinical trials on an approved drug and observational trials are permitted as long as these do not mandate how neutropenia should be treated)
* Prior stem-cell transplantation (includes bone marrow transplantation)
Query!
Study design
Purpose
Query!
Duration
Query!
Selection
Query!
Timing
Prospective
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/12/2012
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/12/2013
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
1007
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW,VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
Research Site - Tweed Heads
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
0
0
Research Site - Bendigo
Query!
Recruitment hospital [3]
0
0
Research Site - Shepparton
Query!
Recruitment hospital [4]
0
0
Research Site - Wodonga
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
2485 - Tweed Heads
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
0
0
3550 - Bendigo
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
0
0
3630 - Shepparton
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [4]
0
0
3690 - Wodonga
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Eggenburg
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Graz
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
Leoben
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Vöcklabruck
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
Austria
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
Wien
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
New Brunswick
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Ontario
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Quebec
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Alès Cédex
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Arras
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Besançon Cedex
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Brest Cedex 2
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Créteil
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Grenoble Cedex 9
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
Marseille
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
Montluçon
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Neuilly sur Seine
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Nimes Cedex 2
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
Pierre Benite Cedex
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
Saint Quentin
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Toulon Cedex
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Villefranche Sur Saone Cedex
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Berlin
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Bonn
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
Fulda
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Mainz
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Neustadt/Sachsen
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Rostock
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Stralsund
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Twistringen
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Athens
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
Chania
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Larissa
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
Nea Kifissia, Athens
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
Thessaloniki
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Ireland
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
Cork
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Ireland
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
Galway
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Catania
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Firenze
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Foggia
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Monza (MB)
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Pordenone
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
Reggio Calabria
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Roma
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Torino
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Varese
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Bialystok
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Bydgoszcz
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Elblag
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Gdynia
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Lodz
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Szczecin
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Warszawa
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Wroclaw
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Braila
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Brasov
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Bucharest
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Cluj Napoca
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Cluj-Napoca
Query!
Country [60]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [60]
0
0
Focsani
Query!
Country [61]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [61]
0
0
Iasi
Query!
Country [62]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [62]
0
0
Onesti
Query!
Country [63]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [63]
0
0
Oradea
Query!
Country [64]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [64]
0
0
Pitesti
Query!
Country [65]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [65]
0
0
Suceava
Query!
Country [66]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [66]
0
0
Timisoara
Query!
Country [67]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [67]
0
0
Andalucía
Query!
Country [68]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [68]
0
0
Aragón
Query!
Country [69]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [69]
0
0
Baleares
Query!
Country [70]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [70]
0
0
Canarias
Query!
Country [71]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [71]
0
0
Castilla León
Query!
Country [72]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [72]
0
0
Cataluña
Query!
Country [73]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [73]
0
0
Comunidad Valenciana
Query!
Country [74]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [74]
0
0
Navarra
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Amgen
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
This is a prospective observational study investigating how physicians assess the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) developing in patients who will receive chemotherapy. Approximately 150-200 investigators will take part in about 100 sites in Europe, Canada and Australia. Approximately 1000 subjects will be studied, all of whom will have non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast cancer and will be due to receive one of the specific chemotherapy regimens of interest. Investigators' approach to FN risk assessment will be studied using lists of possible risk factors they may consider during their assessment. Investigators will be asked to select and rank the factors they consider the most important when assessing the overall FN risk of a subject and when making the decision whether to treat with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (PP). They will be asked to make these selections based initially on their own routine clinical practise and subsequently relating specifically to each subject recruited. This is a non-interventional study that involves no procedures outside normal care for the subjects; all data collection will be completed prior to chemotherapy administration.
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01813721
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Freyer G, Kalinka-Warzocha E, Syrigos K, Marinca M, Tonini G, Ng SL, Wong ZW, Salar A, Steger G, Abdelsalam M, DeCosta L, Szabo Z. Attitudes of physicians toward assessing risk and using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy associated with an intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia. Med Oncol. 2015 Oct;32(10):236. doi: 10.1007/s12032-015-0682-z. Epub 2015 Aug 28. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Legg JC, Abella E, Morrow PK, Whittaker S, Crawford J. Assessing patients' risk of febrile neutropenia: is there a correlation between physician-assessed risk and model-predicted risk? Cancer Med. 2015 Aug;4(8):1153-60. doi: 10.1002/cam4.454. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
MD
Query!
Address
0
0
Amgen
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01813721
Download to PDF