MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of topical diclofenac in prevention of hand-foot syndrome in patients receiving capecitabine.

2023· article· en· W4379281441 on OpenAlexaff
Akhil Santhosh, Atul Batra, Akash Kumar, Raja Pramanik, Ajay Gogia, Winson Y. Cheung, Atul Sharma, Chandra Prakash Prasad, Tushar Sehgal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-related skin toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicineDiclofenacPlaceboAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialCelecoxibRandomizationInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)SurgeryAnesthesiaCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12005 Background: Capecitabine induced HFS is associated with deterioration of quality of life of patients and dose of capecitabine is often reduced to manage this adverse event. Celecoxib is the only effective intervention in preventing HFS; however, its widespread use is limited due to its own safety concerns. We conducted this study to assess the efficacy of topical diclofenac in preventing capecitabine induced HFS. Methods: Patients with breast and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, planned for capecitabine (monotherapy or combination) treatment were randomized in 1:1 to receive topical diclofenac or placebo gel for 4 cycles or until development of HFS, whichever was earlier. Stratified (male or female; capecitabine monotherapy or combination therapy) permuted variable size block randomization was done using a computer-generated random numbers sequence. Primary objective was to compare the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in diclofenac and placebo arms. Secondary objectives were incidence of any grade HFS, capecitabine dose changes due to HFS and self-reported adherence with application. Results: A total of 263 patients were randomized to apply topical diclofenac gel (n=130) or placebo (n=133). Baseline characteristics were similar in both the arms (Table). The incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% (95% CI, 1.6%-8.9%) in the diclofenac arm compared with 15.0% (95% CI, 9.9%-22.2%) in the placebo arm (P=0.003). Any grade HFS was significantly lower in the study arm compared with the placebo arm (6.1% vs 18.1%; P=0.003). A lower incidence of HFS was observed in the diclofenac arm across the subgroups (breast and GI cancers; males and females). Capecitabine dose reductions were less frequent in the diclofenac arm (3.8%) compared with the placebo arm (15%) (P=0.002). Adherence to topical treatment was similar in the diclofenac arm (96.7 +/- 19.1%) compared with the placebo arm (94.0 +/- 28.3%) (P=0.36). Other capecitabine associated adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression were not significantly different in both the arms. Conclusions: Topical diclofenac is effective in preventing all grades of HFS in patients receiving capecitabine. Diclofenac application was also associated with lesser dose reductions of capecitabine. This trial establishes topical diclofenac as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine associated HFS. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2021/01/030592 . [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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChemotherapy-related skin toxicityFrench-language works237,207