A Review of the Patterns of Docetaxel Use for Hormone-Resistant Prostate Cancer at the Princess Margaret Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on the TAX 327 phase III trial, docetaxel-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC); however, there is some heterogeneity in the use of this agent in routine clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to examine the patterns of docetaxel use in routine clinical practice at our institution and to compare them with docetaxel use in the TAX 327 clinical trial. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of HRPC patients treated with first-line docetaxel between 2005 and 2007 at the Princess Margaret Hospital. RESULTS: In the first-line setting, 88 patients with HRPC received docetaxel. The main reasons for initiating docetaxel were rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA, 98%) and progressive symptoms (77%). The PSA response rate was 67%; median time to response was 1.5 months, and duration of response was 6.8 months. Median survival was 15.9 months (95% confidence interval: 12.4 to 20.5 months). Patients received a median of 7 cycles of treatment, and the main toxicities were fatigue (35%) and neuropathy (24%). Post docetaxel, 36 patients received second-line treatment with a 22% response rate. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical practice, HRPC patients received docetaxel mainly because of symptomatic disease progression. Overall response rates and toxicities were comparable to those in the TAX 327 trial. However, our patients received a median of only 7 cycles of treatment versus the 9.5 administered on trial, and survival was slightly shorter in our single-institution study. A larger prospective multicentre analysis, including performance status and quality-of-life parameters, may be warranted to determine if docetaxel performs as well in routine clinical practice as it does in the clinical trial setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".