MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of orteronel (TAK-700) plus prednisone in patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) (ELM-PC 4 trial)

2014· article· en· W2226426266 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald de Wit, Karim Fizazi, Viorel Jinga, Eleni Efstathiou, Peter C.C. Fong, Manfred P. Wirth, Kazuhiro Suzuki, Susan Moran, Ling Wang, Hideyuki Akaza, Joel B. Nelson, Howard I. Scher, Robert Dreicer, Niels Borgstein, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerPrednisonePlaceboChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialCancerUrologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5008 Background: Orteronel, an investigational, non-steroidal, selective 17,20-lyase inhibitor, demonstrated improved radiographic PFS (rPFS) but not OS in men with mCRPC post-docetaxel (Dreicer et al, ASCO GU 2014, Abstract 7). The double-blind ELM-PC 4 trial (NCT01193244) evaluated orteronel in pts with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Methods: Men with progressive mCRPC (rising PSA and/or radiographic evidence) and testosterone < 50 ng/dL (post-orchiectomy or with maintained GnRH suppression) were randomized 1:1 to orteronel 400 mg twice daily (BID) + prednisone 5 mg BID (O+P) or placebo + prednisone (P), stratified by region and radiographic progressive disease at baseline. Co-primary endpoints were OS and rPFS. Based on 90% power to test OS (> 90% for rPFS), an initial HR of 1.25 in favor of orteronel was anticipated with 1454 pts and 900 deaths (pre-assigned alpha: OS 0.045, rPFS 0.005). The final analysis for rPFS was conducted at an interim analysis (IA) for OS; the final analysis for OS was conducted at 600 deaths, with 78% power. Results: 1560 pts were randomized. The study met the co-primary endpoint of rPFS; at the IA (final for rPFS), median rPFS with O+P v P was 11 v 8.3 months (HR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5–0.8; P < .001). At the final analysis for OS the updated median rPFS benefit with O+P v P had increased to 5.1 months (median 13.8 v 8.7 mo; HR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.6–0.8; P < .00001). The co-primary endpoint of OS was not met. Median OS with O+P v P was 31.4 v 29.5 months (HR 0.9; 95% CI: 0.8–1.1; P = .314), with no notable differences across regions. More pts had a ≥ 50% PSA decrease (43% v 25%, P < .00001) and a favorable circulating tumor cell count (15% v 9%, P = .00016) at 12 weeks with O+P v P. Common all-grade adverse events with O+P v P included nausea (36% v 15%), fatigue (34% v 20%), constipation (33% v 15%), and diarrhea (28% v 14%); 30% v 18% of pts discontinued due to AEs. In O+P v P groups, 45% v 51% of pts received subsequent therapy, including docetaxel/abiraterone/enzalutamide in 31%/14%/6% v33%/20%/6%. Conclusion: O+P demonstrated a significant improvement in rPFS but no statistically significant improvement in OS v P in chemotherapy-naive mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT01193244.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.459
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207