Outcomes of First Subsequent Taxane Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Previously Received Docetaxel Intensification for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The management of advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, particularly with the earlier use of survival-prolonging therapies in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Though approved prior to the use of intensification therapy in mCSPC, taxane-based chemotherapies remain a relevant option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is little evidence determining the outcomes of taxane chemotherapies as the first subsequent taxane (FST) in mCRPC pts who received docetaxel intensification (DI) in mCSPC. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes between the survival-prolonging taxanes, docetaxel and cabazitaxel as FST after DI. Methods: New patient consults seen at the Cross Cancer Institute from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Pts were considered eligible if they received DI for mCSPC and then received either docetaxel or cabazitaxel in mCRPC. Variables of interest were collected from electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was ≥50% PSA response at 12 weeks relative to baseline for FST. Secondary endpoints included OS from mCSPC diagnosis, as well as PFS and OS from the FST start date. PSA responses were compared using the chi-squared test, and time-based endpoints were compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: In total, 34 pts were identified: docetaxel = 22 and cabazitaxel = 12 as FST. 91.2% of pts (docetaxel 95.5% vs. cabazitaxel 83.3%) received FST in 2nd line mCRPC. The median age at diagnosis (63.1 vs. 67.1 yrs, p = 0.236) and the median time to CRPC (18.6 vs. 14.2 mos, p = 0.079) were similar for docetaxel and cabazitaxel, respectively. The median time to FST (24.1 vs. 34.6 mos, p = 0.036) and OS from mCSPC diagnosis (30.9 vs. 52.7 mos, p = 0.002) were significantly shorter for pts receiving cabazitaxel vs. docetaxel. PSA responses occurred in 40.9% of pts treated with docetaxel compared to 25.0% treated with cabazitaxel (p = 0.645). There was no significant difference in median PFS (2.7 vs. 3.5 mos, p = 0.727) or median OS (11.4 vs. 8.1 mos, p = 0.132) from the time of FST for pts treated with docetaxel vs. cabazitaxel, respectively. Conclusions: Both docetaxel and cabazitaxel demonstrated activity as FST after DI in mCSPC. Pts who received cabazitaxel had a shorter time to FST and OS from mCSPC. The reasons for this may reflect clinician preference for cabazitaxel in pts with aggressive or rapidly progressing disease. No difference was found in PSA response, PFS, or OS from FST with docetaxel compared to cabazitaxel. While limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size, this study suggests that docetaxel is active as FST despite treatment with DI in mCSPC.
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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».