MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153871840 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu519

Denosumab for the prevention of skeletal complications in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: comparison of skeletal-related events and symptomatic skeletal events

2014· article· en· W2153871840 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell R. Smith, Robert E. Coleman, Laurence Klotz, K. Pittman, Piotr Milecki, Siobhan Ng, K.N. Chi, Arun Balakumaran, R. Wei, H. Wang, Ada Braun, Karim Fizazi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteAmgen
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabZoledronic acidSpinal cord compressionProstate cancerPathologic fractureBisphosphonateInternal medicineUrologyPlaceboHazard ratioBone metastasisSurgeryOncologyOsteoporosisConfidence intervalCancerSpinal cordPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this analysis of a phase III trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases, treatment with denosumab reduced the risk of skeletal complications vs zoledronic acid regardless of whether the end point was defined as SSE or SRE. Both SSEs and SREs were associated with development of moderate/severe pain among patients with no/mild pain at baseline. Background In a phase III trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases, denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in reducing skeletal-related events (SREs; radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). This study reassessed the efficacy of denosumab using symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) as a prespecified exploratory end point. Patients and methods Patients with CRPC, no previous bisphosphonate exposure, and radiographic evidence of bone metastasis were randomized to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus i.v. placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W), or i.v. zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo Q4W during the blinded treatment phase. SSEs were defined as radiation to bone, symptomatic pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, or symptomatic spinal cord compression. The relationship between SSE or SRE and time to moderate/severe pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form. Results Treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing first SSE [HR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66–0.93; P = 0.005] and first and subsequent SSEs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI 0.65–0.92; P = 0.004) compared with zoledronic acid. The treatment differences in the number of patients with SSEs or SREs were similar ( n = 48 and n = 45, respectively). Among patients with no/mild pain at baseline, both SSEs and SREs were associated with moderate/severe pain development ( P < 0.0001). Fewer patients had skeletal complications, particularly fractures, when defined as SSE versus SRE. Conclusion In patients with CRPC and bone metastases, denosumab reduced the risk of skeletal complications versus zoledronic acid regardless of whether the end point was defined as SSE or SRE.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations145
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207