MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction in pediatric low grade glioma (LGG) patients: A national experience. On behalf of the Canadian Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium

2006· article· en· W2340184725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Juliette Hukin, Anne Sophie Carret, Beverly Wilson, Shayna Zelcer, Douglas Strother, I. ODAME, M. Silva, David W. Johnson, Éric Bouffet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Western Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboplatinMedicineChemotherapyIncidence (geometry)Cumulative incidenceDesensitization (medicine)Retrospective cohort studyRadiation therapySurgeryPediatricsInternal medicineCohortCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9053 Background: Carboplatin based regimens are widely used in the treatment of unresectable pediatric LGG. Carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction (CHSR) represents a main limiting factor. Objective: To analyse the incidence, characteristics, management and impact on outcome of CHSR. Methods: National retrospective review of children diagnosed with LGG between 1988 and 2004. Inclusion criteria were age <18 years, pathology proven diagnosis of LGG except in NF1 patients, and no chemotherapy or radiotherapy prior to carboplatin chemotherapy. Results: 105 patients (61F/44M) from 10 Canadian centers were included in the study. Median age at diagnosis was 3.5y (0.3–16.8). 33 patients had NF1, 75 had diencephalic tumor. Carboplatin was given monthly or weekly respectively in 46 and 59 patients. 44 (41.9%) patients developed carboplatin HSR at a median time of 6.5 months (0.4–15.4), after a median number of 10.5 (3–39) injections. CHSR occurred significantly earlier with the weekly schedule (p=0.016). Cumulative incidence of CHSR increased with the number of injections with no plateau. Female had significant higher risk to develop CHSR (p=0.02) whereas age, NF1 status and schedule of administration were not significant risk factors. First allergic reaction was rated grade I, II in 36 patients (82%). 34 patients were reexposed to carboplatin with desensitization/premedication, allowing 14 patients (41.2%) to complete their treatment. But the majority (58.8%) had recurrent allergic reaction with a significant worsening of their symptoms (p=0.039). The median number of additional Carboplatin injections delivered was 4 (0.5–34). After Carboplatin discontinuation, 18 patients were switched to another chemotherapy regimen. 5 years PFS was not significantly different in allergic and non allergic patients (53.9% and 45.6%). Conclusions: In our experience, the incidence of CHSR is high (41.9%). Female have higher risk of CHSR. Desensitization/premedication has limited efficacy and does not prevent worsening of CHSR. CHSR did not impact the PFS. However many patients did switch to another chemotherapy regimen and the total duration of treatment was comparable in both groups. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207