Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Immunotherapy Toxicity Monitoring Program for Patients Receiving Ipilimumab for Metastatic Melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ipilimumab is an effective treatment for melanoma; however, toxicity rates remain high. The objective of this study was to describe the rates of adverse events (AEs), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and nursing resource utilization for patients enrolled in a nurse-led telephone toxicity monitoring program. METHODS: Patients received weekly telephone calls from nursing to review a toxicity checklist during ipilimumab treatment and for 8 weeks after completion. To evaluate this program, a single-center retrospective review was performed for patients treated between July 2012 and September 2017 with single agent ipilimumab for advanced melanoma. Data were collected up to 3 months post-ipilimumab. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were included, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 61 (14.6) years. Thirty-three (49%) patients received four doses of ipilimumab, and 17 (25%) had one dose delay. The median (IQR) of any AEs reported per patient was 11 (8-17). There were 44 (66%) patients with AEs deemed to be definitely or probably related to ipilimumab, and of those, 3 (4%) experienced a grade 3 AE, whereas 4 (6%) experienced grade 4 AEs. Twenty patients (30%) had ER visits, and 31 (46%) were hospitalized during follow-up (9% ER visits and 6% hospitalizations were related to drug toxicity). CONCLUSION: Ipilimumab is associated with high rates of toxicity; however, a proactive nurse-led monitoring program was feasible and patients had low rates of grade 3-4 toxicity. Hospitalization rates and ER visits remained high; however, the minority of those were related to drug toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".