MP73-03 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CARDIOVASCULAR STATUS AND EVENTS IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS TREATED WITH A LUTEINISING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE AGONIST VS ANTAGONIST: RESULTS OF A POOLED ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Advanced I1 Apr 2015MP73-03 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CARDIOVASCULAR STATUS AND EVENTS IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS TREATED WITH A LUTEINISING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE AGONIST VS ANTAGONIST: RESULTS OF A POOLED ANALYSIS Michael Borre, Tom Keane, Zsolt Bosnyak, Anders Malmberg, and Anders Neijber Michael BorreMichael Borre More articles by this author , Tom KeaneTom Keane More articles by this author , Zsolt BosnyakZsolt Bosnyak More articles by this author , Anders MalmbergAnders Malmberg More articles by this author , and Anders NeijberAnders Neijber More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2679AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) treatment for advanced PCa may increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. A pooled analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of CV events or death in men with pre-existing CV disease (CVD) treated with degarelix vs LHRH agonists. We now report regional differences in baseline CV status and incidence of CV events in degarelix and LHRH agonist treated men. METHODS Individual patient level data on baseline CVD and subsequent CV events were pooled from 3 qualifying (>6 months exposure) phase 3 trials. CV events were analysed by geographic region: USA/Canada vs Europe and compared using cumulative incidence functions with all-cause mortality as the competing risk and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Of 1737 men treated with degarelix and LHRH agonists, 404 (36.1%) and 215 (34.7%) had baseline CVD, respectively. By region, baseline CVD prevalence was similar (p=0.085) between Europe and USA/Canada (Table). However, CVD history was more severe in USA/Canada, (e.g. more myocardial infarction and coronary intervention) and multiple CV risk factors more frequent at baseline (p<0.05) (Table). In men with baseline CVD, the cumulative incidence of a CV event was higher in USA/Canada (9.4, 95% CI 5.7–14.0) than Europe (3.5; 95% CI 1.9–5.7), p=0.006 (Gray's test). The treatment hazard ratio (HR; agonist as reference) was similar in the two regions (group-by-region interaction p=0.979) with a homogenous hazard ratio of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.87). CONCLUSIONS Despite a similar proportion of patients with pre-existing CVD by region, baseline CV risk factors were more common and prior CVD more severe in USA/Canada vs Europe. Therefore geographical differences in the 1-year CV event risk (greater in USA/Canada) are likely due to patient clinical characteristics. Similar reduction in the risk of CV events compared to agonist was seen in degarelix patients in Europe and USA/Canada in line with the earlier reported overall rate. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e929-e930 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michael Borre More articles by this author Tom Keane More articles by this author Zsolt Bosnyak More articles by this author Anders Malmberg More articles by this author Anders Neijber More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,020 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».