Prevention of carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions in women with ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Carboplatin-based chemotherapy offers high response rates and improved overall survival for women with epithelial ovarian cancer, but its use is limited by the occurrence of hypersensitivity reactions. To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic diphenhydramine for hypersensitivity reaction prevention, we reviewed the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions and identified patients at high risk of hypersensitivity reactions. Methods Women receiving ≥6 cycles of carboplatin-based chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer were identified from our institutional database at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Institutional policy was changed in 2009 to introduce diphenhydramine prophylaxis for patients receiving ≥6 cycles of carboplatin. Additional clinical data were abstracted from the patient record. Results Between 2006 and 2012, 450 women received ≥6 cycles of carboplatin-based chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. Two hundred and ninety-one women received prophylaxis with diphenhydramine. Carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 41 of 449 patients (9%). Univariable predictors of carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions included administration of 8 to 10 cycles of carboplatin, history of other drug allergies and a platinum-free interval >12 months. BRCA mutational status was not predictive. In a multivariable analysis, the number of cycles of carboplatin and a platinum-free interval >12 months were independent predictors of hypersensitivity reactions. There was a trend towards diphenhydramine prophylaxis reducing the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in women with a platinum-free interval compared to continuous delivery; this was most marked when the platinum-free interval was >12 months (n = 64) (OR: 0.2 (95% CI: 0.046-0.83), p = 0.03). Conclusions The administration of diphenhydramine to women who have a platinum-free interval may reduce the risk of hypersensitivity reaction, but prospective evaluation is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".