MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979763386 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.2730.2730

Understanding Neutropenia: The 20 Year Experience of the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry (SCNIR)

2014· article· en· W2979763386 sur OpenAlexaff
David C. Dale, Audrey Anna Bolyard, Cornelia Zeidler, Tracy M. Marrero, Laurence A. Boxer, Peter E. Newburger, Blanche P. Alter, PK Morrow, Mary Ann Bonilla, Yigal Dror, Frank Firkin, Sally E. Kinsey, John E. Levine, Daniel C. Link, Lee Reeves, Philip S. Rosenberg, Akiko Shimamura, Karl Welte

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBlood disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensGenome CanadaHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNeutropeniaInternal medicineAbsolute neutrophil countTransplantationGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorRheumatoid arthritisCongenital NeutropeniaFebrile neutropeniaClinical trialPediatricsChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In 1994 Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry (SCNIR) opened for enrollment of patients with at least 3 absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) less than 0.5 x 109/L during a three month period. At that time severe chronic neutropenia (SCN) was categorized as cyclic, congenital, autoimmune or idiopathic based largely on clinical criteria. A randomized trial had established effectiveness of treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but long-term consequences of such treatment were unknown. Hypothesis: We began the SCNIR based on the hypothesis that underlying pathophysiology, natural history of patients with chronic neutropenia and benefits and risk of G-CSF therapy could only be accurately established through an international registry with long term follow-up of patients with these rare hematological disorders. Methods: SCNIR enrollment requires informed consent, ANC<0.5 x 109/L at least 3 times over a 3 month period, neutropenia not due to known systemic autoimmune disease (e.g., lupus, rheumatoid arthritis), cancer or cancer chemotherapy. There is a centralized enrollment process directed through offices in the US (Seattle) and Germany (Hannover). Continued enrollment requires annual follow-up information, i.e., clinical status, treatments and blood counts, and bone marrow reports for some categories of patients. Data on pregnancies, stem cell transplantation (SCT), non-hematological features and complications are also collected on standardized forms for subsets of patients. Comprehensive immunological assessments and genetic testing are encouraged but not required for enrollment. For some patient groups, e.g., Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS) and Barth syndrome, the SCNIR now enrolls patients without severe neutropenia to gain perspectives on long-term outcomes for these disorders. Since 1994 the SCNIR has enrolled more than 2000 patients; 174 died, 193 resolved neutropenia, 543 withdrew or were lost to follow-up and almost all others continue in this long term observation study. The median follow-up for enrolled patients is now almost 10 years. The most common patient categories are idiopathic, cyclic (CyN) and congenital neutropenia (CN); 68% of CyN and 65% of CN patients having sequencing studies have mutations in ELANE. Some specific mutations are associated with high frequency (>90%) of severe outcomes (e.g. MDS/AML, failure to respond to G-CSF, death from infections, need for stem cell transplant) often many years after SCNIR enrollment and beginning G-CSF therapy. GSD1 patients improve with G-CSF treatment, but experience splenomegaly and continued problems with infections or complications. The SCNIR through a SDS sub-registry is redefining Shwachman-Diamond syndrome; only about one-half of enrollees have “classic” presentation and a substantial number with “classic presentation” lack mutations in SBDS. The SCNIR is participating in an NIH trial of a CXCR4 antagonist for treatment of WHIM syndrome, as an example of molecularly targeted treatment for this rare disease. The SCNIR is also the key resource for discovery of genetic causes for congenital neutropenia, e.g., G6PC3, HAX1, and TCIRG1 and others, recognition of differences in frequency of autosomal dominant and recessive SCN in populations of Europe and North America and identifying congenital neutropenia cases of unknown cause. Genetic testing has also broadened the clinical spectrum of these disorders. Conclusions: Through the efforts of patients, families, physicians, nurses and investigators, and with support from the NIH, industry, and private philanthropy, chronic neutropenia is now far better understood at the genetic, molecular and cellular level than 20 years ago. Treatment responses to G-CSF are well characterized; novel therapies are emerging; and the prognosis for patients with SCN appears to be improving. The knowledge gained through the SCNIR and availability of G-CSF has redefined clinicians’ approach to chronic neutropenia. The SCNIR is a model of international research collaboration to understand rare diseases in hematology and other areas of medicine. Broad enrollment criteria, physician, patient and family participation, a dedicated staff, and continuing cooperation underlie success of the SCNIR and this model to understanding rare diseases. Disclosures Dale: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Boxer:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Morrow:Amgen: Employment.

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)0,050
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,041
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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,266

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0500,041
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,007
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,230
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · 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

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetBlood disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207