MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280525573 · doi:10.1002/cnr2.1627

Outpatient administration of naxitamab in combination with granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor in patients with refractory and/or relapsed high‐risk neuroblastoma: Management of adverse events

2022· review· en· W4280525573 on OpenAlexaff
Gcf Chan, Daniel A. Morgenstern, Karsten Nysom, Melissa K. Bear, Karen Tornøe, Brian H. Kushner

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Reports · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteY-mAbs Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectPopulationClinical trialNauseaIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Naxitamab is a humanized GD2-binding monoclonal antibody that received accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for refractory or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma limited to bone or bone marrow. Trial 201 (NCT03363373) is an ongoing global clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of naxitamab in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in this population. AIMS: Here, we review the safety profile and adverse event (AE) management associated with naxitamab administration in a pediatric population, based on Trial 201 protocol guidelines and clinical trial experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: At least 50% of patients experienced pain, hypotension, bronchospasm, cough, vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and tachycardia, with the following reported at grade ≥3 AEs for at least 10% of patients: pain, hypotension, urticaria, and bronchospasm. These AEs were generally manageable in the outpatient setting using premedications, supportive therapies, and appropriate monitoring post-infusion. Algorithms were established for infusion-related AEs, including hypotension and bronchospasm, to provide guidance to investigators for early recognition and timely intervention, including medication and infusion rate modification or interruption, or treatment discontinuation, based on AE severity. Educating patients and caregivers on what to expect regarding premedication at home, experience during the infusion cycle, and post-infusion monitoring helps optimize naxitamab treatment and supportive therapies and may reduce treatment burden. CONCLUSION: This article highlights the protocol-based recommendations for the management of acute AEs associated with outpatient naxitamab treatment in Trial 201. The authors recommend close monitoring and timely implementation of measures to ensure that patients can remain on treatment and obtain maximum clinical benefit from naxitamab therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ReportsSame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207