Quality of life (QOL) of patients (pts) with metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC) following treatment with docetaxel or mitoxantrone in the TAX-327 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4557 Background: The TAX-327 study compared 3-weekly docetaxel (D3), weekly docetaxel (D1) or mitoxantrone (M), each with prednisone (P) for 1006 pts with mHRPC. Survival and symptom control were superior for treatment with D3+P as compared to M+P (Tannock et al, NEJM 2004;351;1502–12). Here we investigate QOL and its relation to pain, and effects of treatment on QOL in pts with minimal symptoms. Methods: Pts were assessable for pain response if Present Pain Intensity (PPI) ≥ 2 (range 0–5) or Analgesic Score (AS) ≥ 10. QOL was measured by the FACT-Prostate (FACT-P) self-report score (range 0–156, higher scores indicate better QOL). QOL response required a 16-point increase in FACT-P score maintained on 2 occasions; here deterioration of QOL was defined by a 16-point decrease from baseline in FACT-P score. Pts with minimal symptoms were defined at baseline by a FACT-P score > 128 or by PPI < 2 and AS < 10. Results: QOL was substantially impaired at baseline (FACT-P score ≤128) in 92% and 75% of pts who were and were not assessable for pain (p < 0.001). Correlation of FACT-P score with PPI and AS will be presented. QOL response and deterioration for all assessable pts, and for those with minimal symptoms are shown in the table (p-values compared with M+P). Time-dependent analysis of QOL and its relation to duration of treatment will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Most pts had impaired QOL at baseline regardless of pain. There was greater improvement in QOL following treatment with D+P compared to M+P for all pts and for pts with minimal symptoms. With the caveat that unequal withdrawal of pts might bias the data, there was greater probability of decline in QOL for pts receiving weekly docetaxel. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".