Lanreotide vs octreotide LAR for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: An observational time and motion analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Lanreotide and octreotide acetate suspension for injectable (LAR) are both recommended for clinical use in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. However, each agent possesses unique attributes in terms of their drug-delivery characteristics. The study objective was to compare overall drug-delivery efficiency between lanreotide and octreotide LAR in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients. Methods This study employed an observational time and motion design among patients treated with lanreotide or octreotide LAR across five US cancer centers. Baseline patient data collection included age, disease grade and duration, prior therapies and performance status. Drug-delivery time (drug preparation and administration), total patient time and resource use data were collected for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors receiving lanreotide (n = 22) or octreotide LAR (n = 22). Following each administration, qualitative data on the drug-delivery experience was collected from patients and nurses. Results Lanreotide was associated with a significant reduction in mean delivery time (2.5 min; 95% CI:2.0 to 3.1) compared to octreotide LAR (6.2 min; 95%CI: 4.4 to 7.9; p = 0.004). The mean total patient time for lanreotide and octreotide LAR was comparable between groups (32.1 vs. 36.6 minutes; p = 0.97). Nurses reported increased concerns with octreotide LAR related to needle clogging ( p = 0.034) and device failures ( p = 0.057). Overall, lanreotide had a median satisfaction score of 5.0 compared to a score of 4.0 with octreotide LAR ( p = 0.03). Conclusions Lanreotide was associated with significant reductions in drug-delivery time compared to octreotide LAR, which contributed to an improvement in overall healthcare efficiency. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03017690.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".