MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pegfilgrastim and Daily Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Patterns of Use and Neutropenia-Related Outcomes in Cancer Patients in Spain: Results of the Learn Study.

2005· article· en· W2586817637 on OpenAlexaff
D. Almenar, J Mayans, Óscar Juan, Javier Mareque Bueno, J I Jalón, Alessandra Frau, M. Guinot, Pablo Cerezuela, E. García Buscallà, Jordi Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegfilgrastimMedicineFilgrastimFebrile neutropeniaNeutropeniaInternal medicineGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Daily G-CSFs(Filgrastim, lenograstim) are widely used to reduce duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia(CIN) and incidence of febrile neutropenia(FN) in cancer patients(pts). Data on their patterns of use and effectiveness in routine clinical practice are however limited. The introduction of the once-per-cycle G-CSF pegfilgrastim(Neulasta®) in Spain in 2003 may have changed patterns of use of daily G-CSFs and CIN-related outcomes. Methods: Multicentre, retrospective, observational study of daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim patterns of use and outcomes in adult subjects with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy(CT). Consecutive patient medical records with documented use of daily G-CSF or pegfilgrastim were abstracted from 10 Spanish centers during 2003. Endpoints: percentage of proactive(primary prophylaxis) vs reactive(secondary prophylaxis/treatment) use of G-CSFs, duration of treatment with G-CSF, and CIN-related outcomes(dose delay, dose reduction, incidence of FN, hospitalization and antibiotic consumption). Results: 248 charts documented pegfilgrastim or daily G-CSF use; 75 pts received pegfilgrastim only; 111 pts received daily G-CSF only(99 Filgrastim, 12 lenograstim); 62 pts received both daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim during their CT(data not shown). Most common tumor types were lung(25%), breast(20%), malignant lymphomas(20%). Pattern of use (% pts on primary or secondary prophylaxis, or treatment at any time during CT) was:pegfilgrastim(39%,48%,17%, respectively) vs daily G-CSF(40%,48%,30%, respectively). Median number of injections/cycle in the daily G-CSF group was 6 (range 1–13) in primary prophylaxis, and 5 (range 1–11) in secondary prophylaxis and treatment. CIN-related outcomes are shown in the table below. Conclusions: Patterns of use of daily G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim were similar for primary and secondary prophylaxis, but a potential trend to less frequent treatment use in the pegfilgrastim group was observed. CIN-related complications, including incidence of FN, were observed to be lower in pts receiving pegfilgrastim. CT-related complications% pts (95% CI) Pegfilgrastim(n=75) Daily G-CSF(n=111) Dose Delay 44% (33; 55) 46% (36; 55) Dose Reduction 14.7% (8.2; 24.6) 20.7% (14.2; 29.2) Dose Reduction due to Neutropenia 6.7% (2.5; 15.0) 20.7% (14.1; 29.2) Febrile Neutropenia (FN) 10.7% (5.3; 19.9) 24.3% (17.2; 33.1) Hospitalization due to FN 9.3% (4.3; 18.3) 19.8% (13.4; 28.3) Antibiotic Consumption due to FN 8.0% (3.4; 16.7) 17.1% (11.2; 25.3)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207