MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bicalutamide and Flutamide, Each in Combination with Luteinizing Hormone‐Releasing Hormone Analogs, in Advanced Prostate Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of Impact of Extent of Disease by Bone Scan on Outcome

2000· article· en· W2144087378 on OpenAlexaff
Mark S. Soloway, Paul F. Schellhammer, Rooholloh Sharifi, Norman L. Block, Peter Venner, Anthony L. Patterson, Michael F. Sarosdy, Nicholas J. Vogelzang, Julie Jones Schellenger, Geert J.C.M. Kolvenbag

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsBicalutamideMedicineFlutamideAntiandrogenProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioUrologyCancerEndocrinologyConfidence intervalAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives: We performed an exploratory analysis to determine whether there was a difference between two antiandrogen‐plus‐luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone analogs (LHRHas) combinations in patients with minimal or extensive disease. Materials and Methods: Data from a prospective, randomized, double‐blind study with a median follow‐up of 160 weeks were used to perform an exploratory analysis of outcome with 2 combined androgen blockade regimens in 813 advanced prostate cancer patients based on disease status at entry (minimal or extensive disease). A total of 404 patients received bicalutamide plus LHRHa, and 409 patients received flutamide plus LHRHa. Patients were grouped prospectively by “extent of disease” as determined by bone scan: minimal disease was defined as zero to five lesions, while extensive disease was defined as greater than or equal to six lesions. Patients with no lesions on bone scan (0 lesions) had to have at least one measurable nonskeletal metastasis. Results: Patients with minimal disease receiving bicalutamide plus LHRHa demonstrated a trend to longer survival as reflected by a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.59–1.07), but this was not statistically significant. In the extensive disease group, the effects of bicalutamide plus LHRHa and flutamide plus LHRHa on disease progression and survival were similar (HR 0.96 and 0.90, respectively). Conclusions: Our results are consistent with previously published data demonstrating that patients with stage D2 prostate cancer and minimal disease have a better outcome than patients with extensive disease. In the patients with minimal disease per bone scan, there was a trend toward a benefit for bicalutamide plus LHRHa compared with flutamide plus LHRHa in terms of survival, but not in terms of 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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Prostate JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207