MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential time course of action of 5-HT<sub>3</sub> and NK<sub>1</sub> antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC)

2009· article· en· W3192856091 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. Hesketh, David Warr, James C. Street, A. Carides

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOndansetronChemotherapyDexamethasoneAntagonistRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCyclophosphamideGastroenterologyNK1 receptor antagonistAnesthesiaVomitingReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9629 Background: Cisplatin-based HEC displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, MEC has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to investigate the time course of action of the 5-HT3antagonist ondansetron (OND) and the NK1 antagonist aprepitant (APR) in trials with HEC and MEC. Methods: Phase III HEC and MEC trials of APR were included. In 2 HEC studies, patients (pts) scheduled to receive cisplatin- based chemotherapy were randomized to an active-control group (OND + dexamethasone [DEX] Day 1, DEX bid Days 2–4) or an APR group (APR + OND + DEX Day 1; APR + DEX qd Days 2–3; and DEX Day 4). In a third HEC study, control pts also received OND on Days 2- 3. For the MEC study, breast cancer pts receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were randomized to an active- control group (OND + DEX pre chemotherapy and OND 8 hours (h) later; OND bid Days 2–3) or an APR group (APR + OND + DEX pre chemotherapy and OND 8 h later; APR qd Days 2–3). In a post-hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis at different time intervals using a modified intent-to-treat approach. No multiplicity adjustment was planned, so nominal p-values are reported. Results: 1,527 pts and 856 pts were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials respectively. For HEC, APR reduced risk of emesis beginning 15–18 h after cisplatin and extending to 48 h by 45–77% compared to control and by 45–67% compared to the OND control. For MEC, APR markedly reduced emesis from 6–9 h by 61% compared to control (p=0.0012). Conclusions: Time of onset (15 h vs. 6 h) and time course (15–48 h vs. 6–9 h) for the enhanced control of emesis with the addition of APR differs between HEC and MEC respectively. With HEC these results suggest that 5-HT3 dependent mechanisms are most important in the first 12 h after HEC with NK1-dependent mechanisms having a key role later. With MEC both 5-HT3 and NK1 mechanisms appear to be important early and the greatest impact of the NK1 antagonist occurs in the first 9 h. These results provide a rationale for maximizing NK1-antagonist exposure early on with MEC as a means to improve emesis control. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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