MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131280296 · doi:10.1177/1078155208096902

Evaluation of osmolality and pH of various concentrations of methotrexate, cytarabine, and thiotepa prepared in normal saline, sterile water for injection, and lactated Ringer's solution for intrathecal administration

2008· review· en· W2131280296 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mário L de Lemos, Shirin Monfared, Tetyana Denyssevych, Linda Hamata, Sarah Jennings, Brian Thiessen, Sharon L. Smith, Dawn Waterhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSalineIntrathecalThioTEPAAnesthesiaSterile waterMethotrexateRinger's solutionSurgeryChemotherapyCyclophosphamideChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neurotoxicity of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy has been variously attributed to the preservatives, volume, osmolality, and pH of the preparations. There has been little evaluation of how different drug concentrations or diluents can affect the osmolality and pH of the final solution. We conducted a three-part study: survey of cancer centers regarding the drug concentrations and diluent used in preparing IT chemotherapy; review of the literature on common practice of preparing IT chemotherapy; evaluation of the pH and osmolality of commonly used chemotherapy preparations for IT. METHOD: We surveyed selected cancer centers to provide information on their standard volume, drug concentrations, and choice of diluents. MEDLINE was searched for clinical reports using the MeSH terms of 'cytarabine,' 'methotrexate,' or 'thiotepa' with the subheading 'Cerebrospinal fluid' and combined with 'intrathecal' in all database fields. Data retrieved included the choice of diluent, volume, and/or drug concentration. We evaluated the pH and osmolality of methotrexate (1, 2, 5, and 10 mg/mL), cytarabine (2, 5, 10, and 25 mg/mL), and thiotepa (1, 2, and 5 mg/mL) in normal saline, sterile water for injection (SWFI), and lactated Ringer's solution. RESULTS: Nine centers were surveyed (seven in Canada, one in Australia, one in United Kingdom). Most centers used 5 mL of preservative-free normal saline, irrespective of the drug or drug concentration used. Forty-four reports in the literature were reviewed. Most reported 5 mL of preservative-free normal saline. Most information on drug concentrations was provided for methotrexate, with an average concentration of about 1-2.5 mg/ mL. Cytarabine 0.4-20 mg/mL and thiotepa 1 mg/mL were also reported. In our in vitro evaluation, there was a trend of increased pH associated with increasing concentration of methotrexate and cytarabine. There was no apparent impact of thiotepa concentration on the pH values of the final preparations, irrespective of the diluent used. Except for cytarabine 10 and 25 mg/mL, all the tested solutions have pH within 10% of the physiologic range of CSF. There was a concentration-dependent change in osmolality with methotrexate and cytarabine preparations. Osmolality was increased with increased concentrations in all except methotrexate mixed in SWFI and thiotepa mixed in normal saline and lactated Ringer's solution. Except for some thiotepa solutions, all the tested solutions have osmolality within 10% of the physiologic range of CSF. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited published literature on the potential impact of diluent and drug concentration on the pH and osmolality of IT chemotherapy preparation. Most cancer centers conventionally prepare IT chemotherapy with 5 mL of preservative diluent normal saline, irrespective of the specific drug or dose used. The conventional practice means that most methotrexate preparations are likely to have comparable pH and osmolality to CSF. In contrast, cytarabine preparations may show significantly higher pH than the CSF, while thiotepa preparations generally have lower osmolality than the CSF.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207