MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906797443 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-119079

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Screening and Associated Outcomes in Malignant Hematology Patients Receiving Rituximab Therapy within the Rossy Cancer Network

2018· article· en· W2906797443 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shen Li, Alla'a Ali, Alexander Lawandi, Myriam Fernandez, Caroline Rousseau, Doneal Thomas, Sarit Assouline, Chantal Cassis, Todd C. Lee, Kelly Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineHBsAgHepatitis B virusHepatitis BOncologyCancerLymphomaImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction. Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) reactivation is an important risk of Rituximab therapy, a potent immunosuppressant used as part of chemotherapy regimens against non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. HBV reactivation is a potentially fatal complication that can be largely prevented with antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring of HBV DNA. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2015 guidelines recommend that all patients be screened for both hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) and surface antigen (HBsAg) before initiating Rituximab therapy. According to ASCO, the rates of screening for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients before the administration of Rituximab were less than 70% in 2014 for US centers participating in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. A 2014/15 study at the McGill University Health Centre found that about a third of patients were inadequately screened (A Lawandi, et al). Methods. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the quality of HBV screening and monitoring at the partner hospitals of the Rossy Cancer Network (RCN). From the pharmacy database of the Jewish General Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, and St. Mary's Hospital Center, we obtained the set of patients with hematologic malignancies who began Rituximab treatment between April 2014 and March 2016. We then collected laboratory data on the screening of anti-HBc and HBsAg. Screening was considered appropriate if performed for both anti-HBc and HBsAg in the 6-month window preceding Rituximab administration and considered suboptimal if patients were tested outside this time frame, or for only one of the two tests. Additionally, patient chart reviews were used to collect follow-up information and outcomes for screened patients. Follow-up was considered appropriate when anti-viral treatment was given for infected patients and when patients at risk for reactivation received prophylactic treatment or HBV DNA monitoring. Results. Four hundred and seventy-four patients initiated Rituximab-containing treatment. Of those, 213 (45%) met the criteria for appropriate HBV screening and 138 (29%) for suboptimal screening. Of the patients that were screened (N=351), 6 were actively infected (HBsAg+/ anti-HBc+) and 41 were at risk for reactivation (HBsAg-/ anti-HBc+). All actively infected patients received antiviral treatment as per ASCO guidelines but only 18 (44%) of patients at risk for reactivation received appropriate follow-up, prophylactic treatment or HBV DNA monitoring. HBV reactivation was noted in 2 patients, one of whom died of a hepatic flare. Conclusion. Between 2014 and 2016, less than 50% of Rituximab-treated hematologic cancer patients within the RCN partnered hospitals were appropriately screened for HBV, and 44% of patients at risk for reactivation received appropriate follow-up. In response to these findings, the RCN Hematology Disease Site Group is developing RCN clinical practice guidelines to standardize HBV testing and management of patients at-risk for HBV reactivation. In close collaboration with virologists and hepatologists, the group will provide targeted education sessions to improve compliance with clinical practice guidelines. Additionally, the group aims to implement pharmacy-based interventions, such as coupling Rituximab prescriptions with standard orders for HBV testing, and providing pharmacist autonomy to order HBV testing. Disclosures Assouline: Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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)0.004
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207