MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399929192 · doi:10.1016/j.gore.2024.101439

Challenges in PARP inhibitor therapy: A case of Olaparib-induced liver injury and successful rechallenge with Niraparib

2024· article· en· W4399929192 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Zhu, Yvette Drew, Saumya Jayakumar

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlaparibMedicinePARP inhibitorDiscontinuationOvarian cancerOncologyPoly ADP ribose polymeraseSerous fluidBRCA mutationInternal medicineCancerPolymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Olaparib, the first-in-class poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, is approved for first line maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive FIGO stage 3 and 4 high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) associated with a deleterious BRCA mutation. We report a case involving a 70-year-old female who experienced significant CTCAE Grade 4 hepatocellular injury after initiating first line maintenance Olaparib for Stage 3C HGSOC. Her liver injury resolved upon discontinuation of Olaparib but promptly recurred upon rechallenge. Extensive investigations, including abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography, and assessments for infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune aetiologies of liver injury, were unremarkable. Her liver enzymes returned to baseline after discontinuing Olaparib once again. Subsequently, the patient was started on Niraparib for maintenance therapy, which she tolerated well. This case represents the first instance of positive rechallenge following Olaparib-induced liver injury and highlights the absence of cross-reactive hepatotoxicity between PARP inhibitors.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic Oncology ReportsSame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207