MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia with Taxane-Based Systemic Therapy in Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer.

2009· article· en· W2078907103 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shadi Alkhayyat, Susan Dent, Jean Verreault, Andrew Robinson, Colin Germond, Ted Vandenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsNortheast Cancer CentreOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFebrile neutropeniaDocetaxelBreast cancerInternal medicineTaxaneNeutropeniaEpirubicinRegimenCancerGynecologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most significant toxicities experienced by patients treated with systemic therapy. Taxanes now play an integral role in the systemic therapy for women with early stage breast cancer. The most common taxane-containing regimen utilized in Ontario, Canada is 5-Fluorouracil/Epirubicin/Cyclophosphamide x 3 followed by Docetaxel x 3 (FEC-D). PACS 01 reported a febrile neutropenia (FN) rate of 11.2% in the FEC-D arm. In our clinical practice, clinicians have noted a much higher rate of FN. We report the FN rate with the use of FEC-D in women with early stage breast cancer treated at tertiary care centers in Ontario.Methods: All women with early stage breast cancer who were treated with FEC-D from three tertiary care cancer centers in Ontario, Canada (London, Sudbury, Ottawa) between June 2006 and December 2008 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data included: demographics, staging, hormone receptor status, primary prophylaxis use with growth factors, FN rate, admission to hospital and duration of hospital admission.Results: Median age of 630 women is 52 years (r: 24-77). Staging was: I (88), IIA (243), IIB (159), IIIA (94), IIIB (23), IIIC (14) and 9 unknown. A total of 474 (75.2%) were ER positive. Primary prophylaxis with growth factor support was given to 222 patients (35%) and 408 patients (65%) did not have upfront prophylaxis. Of the 222 patients who were given primary prophylaxis, 14 patients (6.3%) were diagnosed with FN. Of the 408 patients who did not receive primary prophylaxis, 120 patients (29.4%) were diagnosed with FN. All patients (n=120) diagnosed with FN received secondary prophylaxis with growth factor support. A total of 126 patients (20%) were admitted to hospital for FN. The median duration of hospital admission was 3.9 days (r: 1-65 days). The impact of risk factors, the use of filgastrim versus pegylated filgastrim on FN rates and the clinical ramifications of febrile neutropenia (ICU admissions/deaths) will be reported.Conclusions: The results of this retrospective analysis demonstrate a much higher risk of FN (29.4%) with FEC-D than has been previously reported. More complete reporting of primary prophylaxis is required. This rate of FN would warrant use of primary prophylaxis for patients prescribed FEC-D, particularly in high risk subgroups. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 2087.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207