Prior Red Blood Cell Transfusions in Cancer Patients Increase the Risk of Subsequent Transfusions With or Without Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer patients often receive transfusions when their hemoglobin concentration falls to dangerously low levels due to chemotherapy or due to the disease itself. The availability of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) has significantly reduced transfusion frequencies in cancer patients. However, the predictability of transfusions prior to the use of rHuEPO for future transfusions has not been evaluated. Data from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and epoetin alfa were utilized to calculate the relative risk of subsequent transfusions in patients who were pretransfused. A meta-analysis with patient-level data was used to assess predictors of transfusion. Baseline data from an open-label study were used to compare quality-of-life (QOL) parameters between previously transfused and transfusion-naive patients. The mean relative risks (RR) of exposure to additional transfusion for pretransfused patients on placebo or epoetin alfa were 2.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73, 2.65) and 2.51 (95% CI: 1.92, 3.27), respectively, compared with nontransfused patients. Data from the meta-analysis of patients on epoetin alfa showed that pretransfusion was the most significant predictor for subsequent transfusions (parameter estimate = -1.2628, p < 0.0001 from Logistic Regression Analysis). While epoetin alfa was similarly effective in reducing transfusion risks for patients with or without pretransfusions (compared with placebo), those who were pretransfused were more than twice as likely to be subsequently transfused, compared with those not pretransfused. QOL was significantly worse for pretransfused patients than for nontransfused patients, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -Anemia and the Linear Analogue Scale Assessment QOL instruments. The results suggest that transfusions prior to epoetin alfa therapy increase the risk of future transfusions, and early treatment with epoetin alfa might reduce the risk of subsequent transfusions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".