MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Degarelix monotherapy versus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus antiandrogen flare protection in the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer.

2014· article· en· W1898026383 on OpenAlexaff
Bertrand Tombal, Jan‐Erik Damber, Anders Malmberg, Bo‐Eric Persson, Laurence Klotz, Peter Iversen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerGoserelinTestosterone (patch)AntiandrogenUrologyHazard ratioAgonistInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProstate-specific antigenAndrogen deprivation therapyLuteinizing hormoneGynecologyCancerOncologyHormoneConfidence intervalReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

86 Background: Short-term antiandrogen (AA) flare protection is used to counter the testosterone surge associated with luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist therapy. Degarelix, a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist, does not cause testosterone surge. Data from two phase III trials have been used to compare the one year efficacy of degarelix monotherapy versus combined agonist plus AA flare protection. Data has reported testosterone surge in agonist patients despite AA therapy, as well as improved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) and lower mortality in degarelix patients. Here we focus on PSA PFS outcomes and serum alkaline phosphatase (S-ALP) in high risk patients (metastatic disease or PSA more than 50 ng/mL). Methods: Data were pooled from two randomised, one-year studies; CS21 compared monthly degarelix with leuprolide and CS35 compared 3 month formulations of degarelix and goserelin. AA was administered in the agonist groups at the investigator’s discretion. Analyses were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test (probability of PSA PFS), Cox regression (adjusted hazard ratios [HR] for PSA PFS failure) and repeated measures ANCOVA (S-ALP). Results: Nine hundred seventy four patients received degarelix and 69 patients agonist plus AA. The agonist plus AA group contained a higher proportion of patients with Gleason score 7 to 10, metastatic disease, or baseline PSA more than 50 ng/mL compared with the degarelix group. Cox regression was used to account for these baseline differences. PSA PFS failure rate for metastatic patients and those with baseline PSA more than 50 ng/mL was significantly lower with degarelix than with agonist plus AA (HR=0.516, p=0.0198 and HR=0.490, p=0.0077, respectively). S-ALP levels in metastatic patients and those with baseline PSA more than 50 ng/mL during the year of treatment were significantly lower with degarelix (p=0.0025 and 0.0005, respectively). S-ALP fell below baseline by 2 months or less with degarelix and 7 months or less with agonist plus AA. Conclusions: This pooled analysis indicates LHRH agonist plus AA therapy flare protection may not achieve similar disease control as degarelix monotherapy during the first year of therapy in patients at high risk of symptomatic disease progression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→