MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323845226 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30030244

Primary Prophylaxis Lapelga® in Early Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience

2023· review· en· W4323845226 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fahad Khan, Morgan Black, Alaina Charlton, Jawaid Younus

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelCyclophosphamideBreast cancerEpirubicinPegfilgrastimInternal medicineFebrile neutropeniaTolerabilityChemotherapyOncologyNeutropeniaIncidence (geometry)SurgeryCancerAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Lapelga® was approved by Health Canada as a pegfilgrastim biosimilar in 2019 and remains the most commonly used biosimilar in Ontario and is fully reimbursed under the Ontario Drug Benefit program in this category. We explored the efficacy and tolerability of Lapelga® in a retrospective analysis of patients with early breast cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy supported with Lapelga® as a primary prophylaxis. Methods: Adult patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy at the London Regional Cancer Program in London, ON, Canada between May 2019 and June 2022 were included. All of these patients were supported with Lapelga® as the primary prophylaxis. Patients’ age, tumour, and nodal status, their type of chemotherapy, co-morbid conditions, and incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and its related details as well as any reported side effects to Lapelga® were collected. Results: A total of 201 patients were included in this review with majority (78%) of patients under 65 years of age. One third of patients were treated with the adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC)-Paclitaxel dose dense chemotherapy and a quarter of patients with either a docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) combination or an AC-dose dense with Paclitaxel weekly, and 10% or less patients had FEC-D (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) and AC chemotherapy. FN incidence was only 3.48% in this review (7/201 patients). Patients with FN were admitted to hospital and recovered completely with no mortality reported. No cases of a switch to a different granulocyte colony growth factor were seen. The most frequent side effects from Lapelga® included musculoskeletal pain, fever, and headache. However, the majority of patients (88.6%; 178/201) did not have any reported side effects specifically assigned to Lapelga®. Conclusions: In this single centre retrospective study, early breast cancer patients (n = 201) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy supported with primary prophylaxis with Lapelga® had a low incidence of FN (3.48%). This supports Lapelga® being an effective strategy as the primary prophylaxis when used with common chemotherapy regimens in the real-world setting.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207