MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Filgrastim in Patients (Pts) with Hematologic Malignancies (HM) Treated with a Myeloablative Conditioning Regimen and Allogenic Bone Marrow Transplantation (allo BMT).

2005· article· en· W2979964452 on OpenAlexaff
P Ernst, Almalina Bacigalupo, Olle Ringdén, Tapani Ruutu, A. Zander, H. Kolb, W. Siegert, P Strijckmans, F. E. Zwaan, Tomáš Skácel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFilgrastimInternal medicineNeutropeniaAbsolute neutrophil countTransplantationRandomizationGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorFebrile neutropeniaSurgeryRegimenChemotherapy regimenGastroenterologyClinical endpointSurrogate endpointRandomized controlled trialChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background. Recombinant methionyl granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (methuG-CSF; Filgrastim) is commonly used to reduce the duration of neutropenia that follows allo BMT performed after high-dose chemo-/radiotherapy (HDT) in pts with HM. Recently, a retrospective chart review suggested that leukemic pts treated with G-CSF after allo BMT had faster neutrophil recovery, but slower platelet engraftment, increased risk of graft vs host disease (GvHD), and reduced survival relative to pts who did not receive G-CSF (Ringdén et al, 2004). The present double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 study was designed to evaluate the effects of Filgrastim treatment on neutrophil recovery. Pts were to be followed for 2 years. Methods. Eligible pts were aged 12–55 and scheduled for allo BMT from a sibling donor preceded by high-dose chemotherapy +/− total body irradiation for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LBL), high-risk non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), or chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Pts were randomized to receive either Filgrastim (5μg/kg/day) or placebo from transplant until recovery of an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of ≥0.5x109/L or for a maximum of 42 days. Randomization was stratified by age (<18 and ≥18 years) and remission status (1st complete remission/subsequent remissions) within each center. The primary endpoint was the time to ANC of ≥0.5x109/L. Assuming a standard deviation of 3.8 days, the study was powered to have a probability of at least 80% of detecting a difference of at least 3.6 days between the groups for the endpoint of time to ANC ≥0.5x109/L using a two-tailed significance of 5%. Results. The first pt was enrolled in 1993; however, the planned sample size of 100 pts (50 per arm) was not reached due to slow enrollment and the study was terminated in 1996. A total of 66 pts were enrolled; of these, 51 were analysed (25 Filgrastim, 26 placebo). Filgrastim-treated pts achieved an ANC of ≥0.5x109/L at a median (quartiles) time of 15 (13, 16) days compared with 19 (17, 22) days for placebo; ANC ≥1.0x109/L was reached by 16 (15, 17) and 22 (21, 28) days, respectively. Median (quartiles) time to discharge from hospital was 30 (26, 43) days for Filgrastim vs 36 (28, 42) days for placebo. The number of pts with platelet count ≥25x109/L within 56 days was 16 for Filgrastim vs 23 for placebo, and 12 vs 18, respectively, for platelet count ≥50x109/L within 56 days. The incidence, maximum severity and number of days to onset of acute GvHD were similar across the groups. No difference in adverse events was reported; 4 Filgrastim pts died (0 of disease progression) and 8 placebo pts died (3 of disease progression). Conclusion. The results of this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in pts with HM receiving allo BMT may suggest that Filgrastim treatment enhances neutrophil engraftment with no negative impact on platelet recovery or GvHD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207