MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cohort compassionate-use program (CUP) and early access program (EAP) with cabazitaxel (Cbz) plus prednisone (P; Cbz + P) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel (D): Analysis by age group.

2014· article· en· W2243903821 on OpenAlexaff
Zafar Malik, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo, Sergio Bracarda, Alexandros Ardavanis, Mert Başaran, Phillip Parente, Wito de Schultz, Fred Saad, Inge M. van Oort, Winald R. Gerritsen, Luis Aparicio, Geoffrey Matus, Simon Hitier, Axel Heidenreich, Amit Bahl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCabazitaxelInternal medicineDocetaxelProstate cancerDiscontinuationAdverse effectPopulationCohortIncidence (geometry)CancerAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

109 Background: Cbz + P demonstrated an overall survival benefit vs mitoxantrone + P in pts with mCRPC in the Phase III TROPIC trial. The CUP (CABAZ_C_05005) and EAP (NCT01254279) (both funded by Sanofi) were established to allow access to Cbz ahead of commercial availability. The programs are also evaluating Cbz safety in a real-world population. Data analyzed by age group (≤75 and >75 years) are presented here. Methods: Expected enrolment across both programs is 1,450 pts from 236 centres worldwide. Pts received Cbz 25 mg/m2 IV Q3W + P 10 mg QD until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity or physician/pt decision. G-CSF is administered as per ASCO guidelines. Results: As of May 30, 2012, 1,301 pts have enrolled (≤75 years: 1,061 pts [81.6%]; >75 years: 240 pts [18.4%]). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and incidence of visceral metastases were generally balanced between treatment groups. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (46.8%) followed by adverse events (AEs; 24.4%) in pts ≤75 years, and AEs (36.4%) followed by disease progression (31.1%) in pts >75 years. Time from initial diagnosis to inclusion was greater in pts >75 years (median 79.66 months) than in pts ≤75 years (median 53.94 months), but time from mCRPC diagnosis to inclusion was approximately equivalent (>75 years: median 22.6 months; ≤75 years: median 20.94 months). G-CSF use was more frequent in pts >75 years (cycle 1: 62.9% of pts) compared with pts ≤75 years (cycle 1: 52.2% of pts). AEs of clinical concern were more frequent in the older age group (Grade ≥3 AEs: >75 years 64.2%; ≤75 years 54.8%). Grade ≥3 neutropenia was observed in 25.8% of pts >75 years and in 17.0% of pts ≤75 years. Conclusions: We observed several differences between age groups in baseline and on-treatment parameters, suggesting differences in the natural history of mCRPC (faster disease progression in pts ≤75 years than in pts >75 years) and secondary to treatment (AEs more frequent in pts >75 years compared with pts ≤75 years). Clinical trial information: NCT01254279.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207