P5-20-04: Is Primary Prophylaxis with G-CSF Indicated for Adjuvant TC or FEC-D Chemotherapy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimens incorporating docetaxel, including TC (taxotere 75 mg/m2; cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 q 3 weekly for 4 cycles) and FEC-D (5-flurouracil 500 mg/m2; epirubicin 100 mg/m2; cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 q 3 weekly for 3 cycles followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q 3 weekly for 3 cycles), appear to be associated with rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine clinical practice that are higher than those reported in the pivotal clinical trials (7-33% vs. 11% & 18–35% vs. 5%, respectively). Although primary prophylaxis with G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) is indicated for chemotherapeutic regimens associated with rates of FN > 20%, the variable FN rates reported with TC and FEC-D outside of clinical trials have precluded definitive recommendations for G-CSF primary prophylaxis in most jurisdictions. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to assess; i) FN rates associated with TC and FEC-D without and with G-CSF primary prophylaxis outside of clinical trial settings, and ii) the potential impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on FN prevention. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted and major conference abstracts were reviewed up to June 15th 2011 to identify all English language reports of FN rates associated with adjuvant TC or FEC-D outside of clinical trial settings. FN rates with and/or without G-CSF prophylaxis were abstracted, and LOS (length of stay in hospital) and mortality following FN were noted. Summary incidences and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models. Results: A total of 902 patients treated with TC (average age 55 years, range 27–84, 19% ≥ 65 years) and 1342 treated with FEC-D (average age 52 years, range 24–78, 9% ≥ 65 years) from 13 and 9 relevant studies respectively, were included. Overall FN rates of 17% (range: 7–33%) and 24% (range: 18–35%) were reported for TC and FEC-D, with an average primary G-CSF utilization rate of 47% and 30%, respectively. For TC, the pooled random-effects meta-analysis estimates of FN rates were 7% (95%CI: 5–10%) with primary G-CSF and 29% (95%CI: 24–35%) without G-CSF (OR=0.17, 95%CI: 0.09−0.33). For FEC-D, the FN rates were 9% (95%CI: 4–19%) with and 31% (95%CI: 27–35%) without primary prophylaxis (OR=0.22, 95%CI: 0.09−0.56). For FEC-D, 50% of the FN events occurred during the 1st D cycle and 65% overall occurred during D treatments. Older age (≥ 65 years) did not appear to correlate with higher FN rates. Breakthrough FN occurred in 5% across both regimens despite G-CSF secondary prophylaxis. FN was associated with 3.7 and 4.0 LOS days and 0% and 2% mortality during TC and FEC-D, respectively. Conclusions: TC and FEC-D without G-CSF are associated with unacceptably high FN rates in routine clinical practice. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF should be considered for adjuvant TC chemotherapy, and for the D-component of FEC-D regimen, irrespective of patient age. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-20-04.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,028 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».