MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aprepitant in multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

2012· article· en· W2266606434 on OpenAlexaff
Johann-Francois Ouellette Freve, Denis Soulières, Normand Blais, Nathalie Letarte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAprepitantMedicineNauseaAntiemeticVomitingChemotherapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineOndansetronDexamethasoneOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19591 Background: Aprepitant is a NK-1 inhibitor approved in combination with serotonin antagonists and dexamethasone (Dex) for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens for multiple-day chemotherapy are not standard and guidelines recommend serotonin antagonists and Dex for each day of chemotherapy and for following days. Studies with aprepitant in that setting are ongoing. In our center, aprepitant use with multiple-day chemotherapy was prescribed at the physician’s discretion. Methods: We did a retrospective study of the use of aprepitant with cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (CBMDC) regimens from November 2008 to November 2011. Pharmacy files were used to identify patients that received at least one dose of CBMDC. Data was extracted from pharmacy and medical records. Objectives included efficacy (complete response (CR), absence of nausea and vomiting, change in antiemetics) and safety of different regimens. Results: During the study period, 39 patients (34 men) received CBMDC, mostly BEP for testicular cancer. Three patients also received second-line treatment. Patients received BEP (93%), ICE (2%), or TIP (5%) chemotherapy. Eleven patients received 3-day aprepitant, 15 patients 5-day aprepitant and 16 patients did not receive aprepitant at all as primary prophylaxis. Patients were older in the 3-day group. CR was 1% in the 3 day-group, 64% in the 5-day group and 36% in the control group (p=0,08). There was a trend that nausea and vomiting were reported more frequently in the 3-day group. In 4 patients, aprepitant was added for days 4 and 5 in subsequent cycles with better control. Rescue medication was used in 100% of patients receiving the 3-day regimen, 36% in patients receiving the 5-day regimen and 64% of patients not receiving aprepitant. Three patients receiving 5-day aprepitant had to further decrease their Dex dose for adverse events (insomnia, emotional lability, pyrosis, acne). No severe adverse events were reported with the 5-day use of aprepitant. Conclusions: Even within a small population, five-day aprepitant is effective in inducing CR, reducing vomiting and is safe in patients receiving CBMDC. It has been chosen as a standard treatment in our patients.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207