MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2563947761 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.1963.1963

Hematological Testing Is Not Required with Every Dose of Bortezomib In Patients with Adequate Blood Counts at the Start of Each Cycle

2010· article· en· W2563947761 sur OpenAlexaff
Pooja Raibagkar, Paul G. Richardson, Pieter Sonneveld, Michael W. Schuster, David Irwin, Edward A. Stadtmauer, Thierry Façon, Jean‐Luc Harousseau, Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Sagar Lonial, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Donna Reece, Jesús F. San Miguel, Joan Bladé, Mario Boccadoro, Rachel Neuwirth, Dixie-Lee Esseltine, Kenneth C. Anderson, Nikhil C. Munshi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBortezomibMedicineNeutropeniaMultiple myelomaAbsolute neutrophil countDexamethasoneComplete blood countInternal medicineBlood countPlateletToxicitySurgeryGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1963 Introduction: Bortezomib has significant activity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) but can be associated with hematological toxicity. Based on this initial concern, patients (pts) receiving a standard dose and schedule of Bortezomib, twice a week for two weeks, are typically required to be evaluated for adequate blood counts before each bortezomib infusion. This prerequisite substantially increases the time patients need to be in the clinic putting both patients as well as health care providers at potentially increased inconvenience. In an effort to make bortezomib administration more convenient, we evaluated the need for monitoring complete blood counts (CBC) before each infusion by examining for any predictable changes in blood counts on days 4, 8 and 11, based on day 1 counts. Methods: We investigated the changes in neutophil and platelet counts in pts treated with bortezomib on the phase 3 APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remission) study. Pts with MM and measurable disease following 1 to 3 prior therapies were randomized to receive bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for eight 3-week cycles, then on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for three 5-week maintenance cycles, or dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 for four 5-week cycles, then days 1 to 4 for five 4-week cycles. Platelet count (Plt) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) were recorded throughout, and incidences of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were calculated. Results: Data from all 319 pts receiving bortezomib on this study have been analysed. In this relapsed pt population, 15% of pts had plt counts <100 ×109/L on day 1 of cycle 1. However, by cycle 1 day 11, 43% were below this limit; similarly an ANC <1.5×109/L on day 1 of cycle 1 was observed in 13% and on day 11, in 27%. To evaluate the need for CBC prior to every dose we then analyzed the shift in blood counts from day 1 of cycles 2–4 relative to days 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle. We observed that all pts with Plt ≥100 ×109/L on day 1 of cycles 2, 3, and 4 had Plt ≥20 ×109/L on Day 4, and 8; and 99% on day 11. Importantly none of the patients with plt count > 100 ×109/L on day 8 of cycles 2–4, had their plt count drop below 20 ×109/L on day 11. Similarly pts with ANC ≥ 1.5×109/L on day 1 of each cycles 2–4 had ANC ≥ 0.5 ×109/L on days 4, 8, and 11 in > 99% pts. It is also important to note that responding pts had higher counts on day 1 of each cycle and had a lesser drop in their Plt count and ANC with each treatment. Conclusions: These results suggest that the change in CBC with bortezomib treatment as monotherapy is predictable. Importantly, CBCs done on day 1 of cycle 2 and beyond were able to predict the chance of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia on days 4, 8, and 11. We would suggest that patients with a plt count > 100 ×109/L and ANC > 1.5 ×109/L on day 1 of cycle 2 and beyond may not require rechecking of CBCs on days 4, 8 and 11. Reducing the number of CBC's needed during each cycle may improve patient compliance and save time both for pts and health care providers as well as improve resource utilization. Disclosures: Richardson: Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harousseau:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Onyx: Advisory Board, Consultancy; Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Onyx, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Reece:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blade:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Neuwirth:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Esseltine:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munshi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→