Implementation of a hepatitis B screening program in patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy: A Canadian single center retrospective review.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e23242 Background: Cancer patients receiving non-endocrine anti-cancer therapies are at risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr). Medical society guidelines recommend HBV screening prior to treatment, but real-world uptake is slow and variable. The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre implemented a screening pilot program for all patients receiving FOLFOX based regimens or FOLFOXIRI between January and April 2023 which included incorporating HBV screening tests into treatment plan builds and specifying pharmacy and nursing pre-treatment checks. Methods: Charts were retrospectively reviewed, and patient and disease characteristics were collected. The primary endpoint was to identify the proportion of patients who underwent screening prior to treatment start. Univariate analyses assessed the association between baseline characteristics and failure to screen. We also reviewed quality metrics including time from consult to testing, time to result, number of duplicate screens, and treatment delays due to testing. Results: Baseline demographics of the 42 patients included can be found in Table 1. 32 patients (76.2%) completed screening and 5 (15.6%) had a positive screen. The majority of patients screened (78.1%) completed screening prior to first treatment as intended, however 38.1% were drawn on day of treatment. 9.52% of patients had duplicate screening inadvertently. All patients who tested positive were referred to Infectious Diseases. Of those, 1 received antivirals for chronic HBV, and 4 had resolved HBV and were recommended for monitoring. There were no treatment delays due to pending screening and no HBVr. Receipt of prior systemic therapy was significantly associated with failure to screen (55% vs 95%, OR 17.1 (95% CI 1.92-153), p = 0.011). Factors including age, sex, primary disease site, therapy intent, and regimen received were not significantly associated with screening completion or HBV positivity. Conclusions: The results of this pilot highlights the importance of building HBV screening into standardized treatment plans and engaging all team members to ensure high levels of screening. Prior systemic therapy receipt was associated with failure to screen, and thus programs should include education on the necessity of screening as recommended by medical guidelines. The prevalence of HBV in this population may also be higher than previously expected, which should be explored in future research. [Table: see text]
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 | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».