MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925809211 · doi:10.4081/aiua.2015.2.121

Efficacy and safety of second-line agents for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. A systematic review and meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W1925809211 on OpenAlexaff
Gianpaolo Perletti, Elena Monti, Emanuela Marras, Anne Cleves, Vittorio Magri, Alberto Trinchieri, Paul S. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCabazitaxelAbiraterone acetateEnzalutamideDocetaxelProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioAdverse effectMitoxantronePlaceboCancerPharmacologyAndrogen deprivation therapyChemotherapyConfidence intervalAndrogen receptorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the efficacy and the safety of second-line agents targeting metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has progressed after docetaxel. Pooled-analysis was also performed, to assess the effectiveness of agents targeting the androgen axis via identical mechanisms of action (abiraterone acetate, orteronel). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included phase III randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with mCRPC progressing during or after first-line docetaxel treatment. Trials were identified by electronic database searching. The primary outcome of the review was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher). RESULTS: Ten articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. These articles reported the results of five clinical trials, enrolling in total 5047 patients. The experimental interventions tested in these studies were enzalutamide, ipilimumab, abiraterone acetate, orteronel and cabazitaxel. Compared to control cohorts (active drug-treated or placebo-treated), the significant overall survival advantages achieved were 4.8 months for enzalutamide (hazard ratio for death vs. placebo: 0.63; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.75, P < 0.0001), 4.6 months for abiraterone (hazard ratio for death vs. placebo: 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75, P < 0.0001) and 2.4 months for cabazitaxel (hazard ratio for death vs. mitoxantrone-prednisone: 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83, p < 0.0001). Pooled analysis of androgen synthesis inhibitors orteronel and abiraterone resulted in significantly increased overall and progression-free survival for anti-androgen agents, compared to placebo (hazard ratio for death: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87, P < 0.0001; hazard ratio for radiographic progression: 0.7, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.77, P < 0.00001). Androgen synthesis inhibitors induced significant increases in risk ratios for adverse effects linked to elevated mineralocorticoid secretion, compared to placebo (risk ratio for hypokalemia: 5.75, 95% CI 2.08 to 15.90; P = 0.0008; risk-ratio for hypertension: 2.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.17; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In docetaxel-pretreated patients enzalutamide, abiraterone-prednisone and cabazitaxel-prednisone can improve overall survival of patients, compared to placebo or to best of care at the time of study (mitoxantrone-prednisone). Agents targeting the androgen axis (enzalutamide, abiraterone, orteronel) significantly prolonged rPFS, compared to placebo. Further investigation is warranted to evaluate the benefit of combination or sequential administration of these agents. Large-scale studies are also necessary to evaluate the impact of relevant toxic effects observed in a limited number of patients (e.g., enzalutamide-induced seizures, orteronel-induced pancreatitis, and others).

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.026
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.420
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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivio Italiano di Urologia e AndrologiaSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207