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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".