Pharmacodynamic Equivalence of a Decapeptyl 3-Month SR Formulation with the 28-Day SR Formulation in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of the study was to assess the pharmacodynamic equivalence of LHRH analogue triptorelin 3-month and 28-day SR formulations. METHODS: Patients with documented locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomized to receive one injection of the 3-month formulation (n = 63) or three injections at 28-day intervals of the 28-day formulation (n = 68). Group-chemical castration rates defined as the percentage of patients reaching a testosterone plasma level </=0.5 ng/ml were compared at D84 (i.e., 3 x 28 days). Testosterone, LH and triptorelin plasma profiles, and change from baseline in plasma PSA were assessed over 3 months (from baseline to D91). RESULTS: Chemical castration rates were 98 and 96% in the 3-month and 28-day formulation groups, respectively, with confidence interval (two-sided 94.2% CI) of [-8.1%; 9.6%]. Median times to reach chemical castration were 18.8 and 18.5 days (p = 0.86, log rank), respectively. Ratios for mean peak plasma levels and AUC(91) of the two formulations for both testosterone and LH fell within the [0.80; 1.25] equivalence interval. Mean PSA decreases from baseline at D91 were 91.0 and 91.7%, respectively (p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Treatments with the two triptorelin formulations over 3 months are pharmacologically equivalent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".