MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing alternative dosing strategies for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use with FOLFOX6 therapy for treatment of colorectal cancer in a prospective cohort.

2015· article· en· W2248890491 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan A. Stinson, Yoo‐Joung Ko, Carlo DeAngelis, Angie Giotis, Mark Pasetka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorDosingNeutropeniaRegimenChemotherapyInternal medicineFebrile neutropeniaColorectal cancerFilgrastimSurgeryCancerGastroenterologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

771 Background: While clinical guidelines recommend an average of 11 injections of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) per cycle of chemotherapy, few studies support alternative dosing strategies for G-CSF use by cancer type and chemotherapy regimen. Methods: From 2004 to 2013, 63 colon and 47 rectal cancer patients were recruited and monitored throughout the course of their FOLFOX6 therapy. G-CSF use was determined by a clinical pharmacist and tracked every week to ensure patients received an adequate number of injections and were compliant with each cycle. All patients received at least two cycles of G-CSF. Occurrence of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were compared between patients receiving four and five injections per cycle. Results: There were 54 males and 56 females with a median age of 56. 104 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy with the remaining six being in the metastatic setting. 83 of 110 (75%) patients experienced no delays after initiation of G-CSF with 67 (61%) of those patients receiving four or five injections per cycle. The remaining 27 of 110 (25%) patients experienced a delay in treatment after at least one cycle of G-CSF completed (15 neutropenic delays, four FN delays, and 12 thrombocytopenic delays). Significantly, only seven of those 27 (26%) patients had a neutropenic delay that occurred as a result of a failed dosing strategy after G-CSF was initiated. Of these seven neutropenic delays, five (71%) were the result of a four dose injection pattern, but none were the result of the five dose injection pattern scheme. All other delays, after at least one cycle of G-CSF (74%), were caused by patients’ non-compliance The overall compliance rate with G-CSF injections was 93%. Conclusions: Only 7 of 110 (6.4%) patients experienced a G-CSF failure. It is recommended that G-CSF be administered on day 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of each FOLFOX6 cycle to maintain absolute neutrophil counts and prevent treatment delays.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207