MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chemotherapy Induced Febrile Neutropenia of Docetaxel with Cyclophosphamide (TC) for Adjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer in the Community – Reality Check.

2009· article· en· W2088936113 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert E. Myers, Brian P. Higgins, Jillian Myers, Monica Leung, Shrikar Rajagopal, Gudrun Jones, Julie Stakiw

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFebrile neutropeniaDocetaxelMedicineNeutropeniaCyclophosphamideBreast cancerInternal medicineCancerChemotherapyAntibioticsCohortAdjuvant therapyOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Following the publication of the paper utilising docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer Jones et al JCO 24:5381-5387/2006, we elected to use this program for low to intermediate risk breast cancer patients at the Carlo Fidani Cancer Centre in Mississauga Ontario. From January 2008 until June 2009 we have treated 86 patients. After treating our first 16 patients 6 had developed febrile neutropenia requiring admission to hospital. These patients were subsequently treated with either dose reduction or filgastrim/pegfilgastrim was added. For all 70 subsequently treated patients with this program, either dose reduction or primary prophylaxis with filgatrim or pegfilgastrim was used,prophylactic antibiotics were not used. In this cohort 2 patients required admission to hospital with infection and only 1 was neutropenic (2/70=3%). Details of all patients will be presented. The likelihood of this difference occurring from chance was small p< .0005. (Fischer exact test) Within the paper the quoted febrile neutropenia rate was 5% for the TC group. In the first publication JCO 24:5381-5387, 2006 it is stated that neither prophylactic antibiotics nor growth factors were routinely used whereas in the second paper JCO 27:1177-1183,2009 it is stated that prophylactic quinoline antibiotics were recommended but not required. It is important in a landmark study like this one that details regarding anciliary treatments be detailed so that it may be used safely in the community. Our rate of febrile neutropenia without filgastrim/pegfilgastrim was 6/16=37.5%. The causes of the differences between our rate of fne and that seen in the paper will be discusseed. In addition the differences we saw in the fne rate when either filgastrim/pegfilgatrim were added were markedly improved. In conclusion the TC program given a fne rate > 30 % would mandate the usage of filgastrim or pegfilgastrim for primary prophylaxis. The addition of figastrim/pegfilgastrim markedly reduced our fne rate. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 2092.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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