MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Real-World Treatment of Polycythemia Vera: Adherence to Treatment Guidelines and Outcomes

2017· article· en· W2907581136 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas L.J. Chornenki, Chatree Chai‐Adisaksopha, Deborah Siegal, Christopher Hillis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolycythemia veraPhlebotomyInternal medicineAspirinHazard ratioThrombocytosisGuidelineThrombosisCohortRetrospective cohort studySurgeryPediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The aim of therapy for polycythemia vera (PV), a myeloproliferative neoplasm, is to reduce cardiovascular risk without increasing the risk of bleeding or hematological transformation. Current consensus guidelines suggest low dose aspirin and phlebotomy for patients at low-risk for thrombosis ( Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed JAK2V617F positive PV patients over the age of 18 between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2017 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, major bleeding, and hematological progression. Statistical analysis was performed in STATA using Cox proportional hazard models, and Poisson regression. Results A total of 112 patients (58.0% female) met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 70 (14) years. Median follow-up was 3.38 years (Range = 0.04-11.89). At diagnosis, 82.1% of patients were classified as high risk for thrombosis. At diagnosis cardiovascular risk factors were present in 69.6% of patients including previous thrombotic events in 27.5%. Symptoms of PV (e.g. pruritus, vasomotor, fatigue) were found in 52.7% of patients at diagnosis. Patients received treatment with phlebotomy (90.2%), aspirin (87.5%), and hydroxyurea (74.1%). Monotherapy was used in 6 (24%) of the non-guideline patients and was not found in the guideline group. Anticoagulants were used in 17.2% of patients. Overall, only 77.7% of patients received treatment that was consistent with guidelines regarding aspirin and hydroxyurea use. A total of 22 (19.6%) of patients died during follow-up; increasing white blood cell count at diagnosis, increasing age at diagnosis, history of diabetes and history of congestive heart failure were associated with higher risk of death (Table 1). Patients who were not treated according to the guideline recommendations at any point during follow-up had an increased risk of death (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.03-8.05; P Conclusion This contemporary North American PV patient cohort study showed that the majority of newly diagnosed PV patients were older adults at high risk of thrombosis consistent with previous studies. The presence of cardiovascular comorbidities at diagnosis appeared to increase the risk of death. About three-quarters of patients in our cohort received treatment according to consensus guideline recommendations. Although the reasons for discordance with guidelines are uncertain, those who did not receive recommended therapy appeared to have an increased risk of death. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution due to the possibility of confounding by other factors that influence mortality. Future research regarding the barriers and facilitators of PV treatment guideline use, and the optimal strategy for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors may provide opportunities to improve care and patient outcomes. Disclosures Siegal: Novartis: Other: Focus Group; Bayer: Other: Focus group; BMS-pfizer: Other: Presentation; Servier: Other: Focus Group; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Presentation. Hillis: Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Novartis Oncology: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal Fees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→