A phase III protocol of androgen suppression (AS) and 3DCRT/IMRT versus AS and 3DCRT/IMRT followed by chemotherapy (CT) with docetaxel and prednisone for localized, high-risk prostate cancer (RTOG 0521).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA5002 Background: High-risk, localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients have a relatively poor prognosis. We hypothesized that the addition of adjuvant docetaxel and prednisone to long-term (24 month) AS and radiation therapy (RT) would improve overall survival (OS). Methods: RTOG 0521 opened December 2005 and closed August 2009 with targeted accrual of 600 cases. It was designed to detect improvement in 4-year OS from 86% to 93% with a 51% hazard reduction (HR = 0.49). Under a 0.05 1-sided type I error and 90% power, at least 78 deaths were required to analyze the OS endpoint. Patients had 1) Gleason (Gl) 7-8, any T-stage, and PSA > 20, or 2) Gl 8, ≥ T2, any PSA, or 3) Gl 9-10, any T-stage, any PSA. All had PSA ≤ 150. RT dose was 75.6 Gy. CT consisted of 6, 21-day cycles of docetaxel + prednisone starting 28 days after RT. Results: Of 612 enrolled, 50 were excluded for eligibility issues, leaving 562 evaluable. Median age = 66, median PSA = 15.1, 53% had Gl 9-10, 27% had cT3-4. Median follow-up = 5.5 yrs. 4-yr OS rates were 89% [95% CI: 84-92%] for the AS+RT arm and 93% [95% CI: 90-96%] for the AS+RT+CT arm (1-sided p = 0.03, HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.44, 1.03]). There were 52 centrally-reviewed deaths in the AS+RT arm and 36 in the AS+RT+CT arm, with fewer deaths both due to PCa/treatment (20 vs 16) and due to other causes/unknown (32 vs 20) in the AS+RT+CT arm. 5-yr disease-free survival rates were 66% for AS+RT and 73% for AS+RT+CT (2-sided p = 0.05, HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.57, 1.00]). There was 1, Gr 5 unlikely-related adverse event (AE) in the AS+RT arm and 2, Gr 5 possibly/probably-related AEs with AS+RT+CT. Conclusions: For high-risk, localized PCa, adjuvant CT improved the OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years. Toxicity was acceptable. This trial was designed with a short OS assessment period and additional follow-up is warranted to determine the long-term benefit of CT to the current standard of care of long-term AS+RT. This project was supported by grants U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822, from the National Cancer Institute and Sanofi with additional support from AstraZeneca for Australian site participation. Clinical trial information: NCT00288080.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".