MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166918329 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1405095

Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer before Chemotherapy

2014· article· en· W2166918329 on OpenAlexafffund
Tomasz M. Beer, Andrew J. Armstrong, Dana E. Rathkopf, Yohann Loriot, Cora N. Sternberg, Celestia S. Higano, Peter Iversen, Suman Bhattacharya, Joan Carles, Simon Chowdhury, Ian D. Davis, Johann S. de Bono, Christopher P. Evans, Karim Fizazi, Anthony M. Joshua, Choung‐Soo Kim, Go Kimura, Paul N. Mainwaring, Harry H. Mansbach, Kurt Miller, Sarah B. Noonberg, Frank Perabo, De Phung, Fred Saad, Howard I. Scher, Mary‐Ellen Taplin, Peter Venner, Bertrand Tombal

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucNational Cancer InstituteKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science UniversityUniversity of California, DavisDuke Cancer InstituteAstellas Pharma Global DevelopmentWeill Cornell Medical CollegeRigshospitaletFundació Institut de Recerca Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebronInstitut Gustave-RoussyAstellas PharmaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of AlbertaMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterMonash UniversityOregon Health and Science University
KeywordsEnzalutamideProstate cancerMedicineOncologyChemotherapyInternal medicineDocetaxelCancerAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P<0.001). A total of 626 patients (72%) in the enzalutamide group, as compared with 532 patients (63%) in the placebo group, were alive at the data-cutoff date (29% reduction in the risk of death; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.84; P<0.001). The benefit of enzalutamide was shown with respect to all secondary end points, including the time until the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.35), the time until the first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio, 0.72), a complete or partial soft-tissue response (59% vs. 5%), the time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (hazard ratio, 0.17), and a rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA (78% vs. 3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Fatigue and hypertension were the most common clinically relevant adverse events associated with enzalutamide treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly decreased the risk of radiographic progression and death and delayed the initiation of chemotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma; PREVAIL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01212991.).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations3,031
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207