MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137664975 · doi:10.1177/1078155206073520

Renal safety of 1-hour pamidronate infusion for breast cancer and multiple myeloma patients: comparison between clinical trials and population-based database

2006· article· en· W2137664975 on OpenAlexaff
Mário L de Lemos, Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor, Jeff Barnett, F. Hu, Adeera Levin, Veronika Moravan, Susan E. O’Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineZoledronic acidMultiple myelomaBreast cancerPopulationClinical trialCreatinineUrologyBisphosphonateInternal medicineCancerSurgeryOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends infusion of pamidronate over 2 hours to avoid renal deterioration, although there are data to suggest that 1-hour infusions may be safe. METHODS: Prevalence of renal deterioration with 1-hour pamidronate infusions from a population database was compared to renal deterioration with 2-hour pamidronate infusions, in randomised, controlled, trials. A cost-minimisation analysis, comparing the 1- and 2-hour pamidronate infusions, and the 15-minute infusion of zoledronic acid, was performed with a sensitivity analysis that varied the opportunity cost of time in the treatment room. RESULTS: Renal deterioration occurred in 7.7% of 169 patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic breast cancer. There is no evidence that this differs from the 10% reported in randomised, controlled, trials (one-tailed binomial test, P = 0.3874). A subgroup analysis showed that renal deterioration occurred in 15 and 1.1% of patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic breast cancer, respectively. The median increase in serum creatinine was 13 and 7% in the multiple myeloma and breast cancer groups, respectively. The respective costs/dose (drug/labour/supplies) of pamidronate and zoledronic acid are 325 dollars and 610 dollars. Cost neutrality occurs if the opportunity cost of chair time is 6.33 dollars/minute for pamidronate 1-hour versus zoledronic acid, and 2.71 dollars/minute for pamidronate 2-hour versus zoledronic acid. If a median 4 dollars/minute is used, the respective costs of pamidronate 1-hour, 2-hour, and zoledronic acid infusions are 685 dollars, 925 dollars, and 790 dollars/cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of renal deterioration with 1-hour pamidronate infusions from a population database was not significantly different to 2-hour pamidronate infusions in clinical trials. Our findings suggest further support for the safety of 1-hour pamidronate infusions. Pamidronate via 1-hour infusion is less expensive than zoledronic acid.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
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 head0.528
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207