MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CP-096 Adverse drug effects related to generic capecitabine in comparision with xeloda

2017· article· en· W2599962379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marta Miarons, Rosa Querol, Q Moreno, Sergio Marín, Lluís Campins, T Gurrera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicineMucositisOncologyChemotherapyOxaliplatinRegimenBreast cancerColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is among the most commonly used chemotherapy drugs in oncology practice. Common toxicities of 5-FU and capecitabine include diarrhoea, mucositis and myelosuppression. Capecitabine (Xeloda) is an oral prodrug of 5-FU and is increasingly replacing infusional and bolus intravenous 5-FU. <h3>Purpose</h3> The aim of this study s to assess the adverse drug effects (ADE) in all patients treated with generic capecitabine in our hospital compared with those reported for Xeloda. <h3>Material and methods</h3> A retrospective observational study of patients treated with capecitabine for any indication over a period of 18 months (March 2014 to November 2015) was carried out. Data were collected from medical records which also stored patient characteristics, their disease, regimen received and ADE graded according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada Common Toxicity Criteria (NCIC-CTC). <h3>Results</h3> 53 patients were included with a mean age of 68. 51% were women. 32 patients were receiving capecitabine monotherapy, 13 capecitabine and oxaliplatine, 3 bevacizumab, 4 radiotherapy and 3 mitomicine. Capecitabine was used to treat colorectal cancer in 39 patients (73.6%), breast cancer in 8 (15.1%), pancreatic cancer in 4 (7.5%), upper gastrointestinal cancer in 1 (1.9%) and ovarian cancer in 1 (1.9%). Regarding all patients, 8 (15.1%) had their dose reduced and 11 (20.8%) stopped treatment. Moreover, this occurred more frequently when capecitabine was associated with another chemotherapy. The main ADE were: diarrhoea 10 (19%), hand–foot syndrome grade 2 or more 8 (24.5%) and asthenia 5 (9%), whereas the most commonly reported adverse event (all grades) in all studies of Xeloda were hand–foot syndrome followed by diarrhoea and nausea and vomiting, and were generally slightly higher. <h3>Conclusion</h3> We can conclude that: we saw slightly fewer ADE in our patients treated with capecitabine compared with what is reported for Xeloda; ADE occurred more frequently when capecitabine was associated with another chemotherapy; and capecitabine is a useful treatment, but careful monitoring during the first and subsequent cycles of treatment is recommended for all patients. No conflict of interest

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207