MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310161034 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-171047

Evaluation of Bleeding and Thrombocytopenia in Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Hypomethylating Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4310161034 on OpenAlexaff
Neelan Sriranjan, Anna R. Blankstein, Nora Choi, Kristjan Paulson, David Sanford, Lee Mozessohn, Donald S. Houston, Emily Rimmer, Sylvain Lother, Asher A. Mendelson, Allan Garland, Rena Buckstein, Annette E. Hay, Ryan Zarychanski, Brett L. Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaBC Cancer AgencyHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare ManitobaSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypomethylating agentMedicineMyeloid leukemiaMeta-analysisInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a myeloid malignancy associated with cytopenias and significant morbidity and mortality. Hypomethylating agents (HMA), such as azacitidine and decitabine, form the backbone of outpatient chemotherapy for many patients with AML. Thrombocytopenia, a well-established risk factor for bleeding, is common and related to both underlying disease and as well as treatment. However, the frequency and severity of bleeding, particularly with novel combination therapies, has not been well described (CRD42022339160). Objectives: Our primary objective was to evaluate the incidence and severity of bleeding in patients with AML receiving hypomethylating agents. We also aimed to explore the relationship between bleeding and thrombocytopenia and the use of supportive care strategies to prevent bleeding. Population: Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with AML (≥80% of the study population) treated with hypomethylating agents. Outcomes: Our primary outcome was grade 3 or 4 bleeding, defined using National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). Secondary outcomes included bleeding of any grade, deaths due to bleeding, grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia using NCI-CTCAE, duration of thrombocytopenia, platelet count at time of bleeding, and number of patients who received tranexamic acid to prevent or treat bleeding. Methods: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library) and CINAHL from inception to April 2021 to identify relevant citations of published trials, using individualized systematic search strategies for each database. We included randomized control trials of adults with AML receiving hypomethylating therapy. Studies were included if they evaluated HMA therapy in patients with AML and reported at least one outcome of interest related to bleeding, thrombocytopenia, or supportive measures used. We used Freeman-Tukey transformation to calculate the weighted summary proportion using a random effects model. Results: We included 12 unique trials enrolling 2,105 patients. Azacitidine was studied in 6 trials (n=998 patients), while 5 trials evaluated decitabine (n=580 patients), and 2 trials studied combination hypomethylating agent therapy (HMA and venetoclax) (n=401 patients). The median patient age was 75, and 69% were male. Grade 3 or 4 bleeding occurred in 9% of patients (95% confidence interval (CI) 6 to 12%; n=4 trials; 313 patients). Death due to bleeding was reported in 3% of patients (95% CI 1 to 6%; n=3 trials; 215 patients). Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 35% of patients (95% (CI) 26 to 44%; n=11 trials; 1,506 patients). Duration of thrombocytopenia, platelet count at time of bleeding event, and number of patients who received tranexamic acid to prevent or treat bleeding was not reported. Conclusion: The incidence and severity of bleeding and thrombocytopenia in patients with AML treated with hypomethylating agents have not been systematically reported. Further, the relationship between bleeding and thrombocytopenia and the use of supportive care strategies to prevent bleeding were not well characterized. Comprehensive reporting of bleeding risk factors and bleeding events, as well as prophylactic strategies used to prevent bleeding, are needed to inform best practice and optimize supportive care for this high-risk patient population.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.018
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→