MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of prostate-specific antigen decline as a surrogate for overall survival in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC)

2007· article· en· W2249444889 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Armstrong, Mario A. Eisenberger, Elizabeth Garrett‐Mayer, Yuguang Yang, Michael A. Carducci, Ronald de Wit, I. F. Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitoxantroneSurrogate endpointProstate cancerDocetaxelProportional hazards modelInternal medicineProstate-specific antigenHazard ratioPrednisoneOncologyChemotherapyGynecologyUrologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5009 Background: A 30% PSA decline following initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy has been identified as a potential surrogate for overall survival in metastatic HRPC. We sought to examine whether various levels of PSA decline were surrogates for overall survival in TAX327, a randomized trial of q3w docetaxel and prednisone (DP), q1w DP, and q3w mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP). Methods: In this trial of 1006 men with HRPC, 943 men had sufficient data on 3-month post-treatment PSA decline for analysis, and 646 had sufficient data for analysis for a change in PSA kinetics with therapy. Surrogacy was examined for a range of PSA decline from 0% to 90% and PSA normalization, and for post-treatment changes in PSA kinetics. We investigated the Prentice Criteria for surrogacy using Cox proportional hazards models and calculated the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE) by each surrogate marker. Results: In this analysis, a 30% or greater PSA decline with therapy was identified as the optimal cutoff that correlated with overall survival, based on the highest PTE point estimate (0.66, 95% CI 0.23–1.0), with 1.0 being a perfect surrogate. A 30% decline in PSA in the first 3 months after treatment occurred in 65% of subjects receiving q3w DP, 67% q1w DP, and 44% q3w MP, despite the significant survival benefits seen only with q3w DP. A 30% PSA decline was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% CI 0.36–0.51) for overall survival after adjusting for treatment effect, while treatment effect itself lost significance, indicating surrogacy. Additionally, PSA normalization, changes in PSA kinetics, and pain response were significant prognostic variables, yet were only modest surrogates for the survival benefit seen with q3w DP therapy. Conclusions: In this trial of two schedules of DP as compared to MP for HRPC, a PSA decline of 30% in the first three months following initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy was found to have the highest degree of surrogacy for overall survival, thus confirming data from the SWOG 9916 trial. However, given that the confidence interval for the estimate of this surrogate effect is wide, overall survival should remain the preferred endpoint for phase III trials of cytotoxic agents in HRPC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→