MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feasibility of olanzapine at reduced dose in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomised controlled trial against aprepitant in triple therapy (FORESIGHT).

2020· article· en· W3032004581 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Chen, I. Ceballos Barón, Stephanie Beaulieu, Annick Dufour, Nathalie Letarte, Catherine Prady

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Charles-Le Moyne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAprepitantMedicineOlanzapineNauseaTolerabilityChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingOndansetronAntiemeticInternal medicineAdverse effectAnesthesiaVomitingChemotherapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12087 Background: Olanzapine is used as an adjunct antiemetic in oncology as salvage therapy and in four-drug prophylaxis. Growing literature supports its effectiveness in initial three-drug prophylaxis in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: This prospective, multi-centre, open-label study evaluated the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and tolerability of 5 mg olanzapine once daily for four days (starting the night before chemotherapy) versus standard dose aprepitant (in tritherapy with standard ondansetron and dexamethasone) in treatment-naive patients receiving the first cycle of a HEC. Secondary outcomes included: complete response (no nausea, no emesis, no use of rescue medication), complete remission (no emesis, no rescue medication), intensity of patient-reported nausea and emesis on a visual analog scale, quality of life (scored with the Functional Living Index Emesis [FLIE]), and incidence of adverse events. Results: We randomized 30 patients in an intent-to-treat analysis. The large-scale trial was deemed not feasible without support from a research centre. Complete response rates were significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (24-120h post-chemotherapy) (86,7% v 21,4%, p < 0,001) and overall phase (0-120h post-chemotherapy) (60,0% v 21,4%, p = 0,04). Similar results were observed for complete remission. Intensity of patient-reported nausea was significantly lower in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (p = 0,001). FLIE scores were significantly lower for the nausea domain (mean 62,3 v 60,9, p = 0,004) and overall score (124,3 v 108,8, p = 0,006). Depression on the ESAS-R was more common in the aprepitant group (0% v 38%, p = 0,01). Other adverse events were not significantly different. Conclusions: Support from a research centre must be ensured for study feasibility. Tritherapy olanzapine significantly improved complete response and remission in the delayed and overall phases post-chemotherapy among patients receiving HEC. It was also associated with higher quality of life and a reassuring safety profile. This feasibility trial, despite its small sample size, is one of the first prospective randomised trials to suggest similar efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine to aprepitant and to measure a difference in patient quality of life with this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT04075955 .

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207