Epoetin Alfa Therapy Increases Hemoglobin Levels and Improves Quality of Life in Patients With Cancer-Related Anemia Who Are Not Receiving Chemotherapy and Patients With Anemia Who Are Receiving Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QOL) changes with epoetin alfa therapy for anemia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Anemic cancer patients were enrolled onto this prospective, open-label study from 34 centers across Canada. The trial had two cohorts: patients who were and were not receiving chemotherapy during the 16-week study. All patients initially received epoetin alfa 150 IU/kg subcutaneously three times per week. The dose was doubled after 4 weeks for patients who did not experience sufficient response. RESULTS: Of the 183 patients enrolled in the nonchemotherapy cohort, statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in QOL were observed with epoetin alfa therapy using both the FACT-An questionnaire and linear analog scale assessment. Hemoglobin levels increased significantly (P <.001; mean increase 2.5 g/dL from baseline to end of study) and these increases were positively correlated with improved QOL and change in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of patients who required blood transfusions. The 218 patients in the chemotherapy cohort also experienced significant improvements in QOL, decreased transfusion use, and increased hemoglobin levels that correlated with QOL improvements and change in ECOG scores. Epoetin alfa was well-tolerated in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa administered to patients with cancer-related anemia for up to 16 weeks resulted in significantly improved QOL, increased hemoglobin levels, and decreased transfusion use. These benefits were observed in cancer patients who were not receiving chemotherapy as well as those who were.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".