Study of the impact of Charlson comorbidity index and hypertension on survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
111 Background: Clinical and laboratory factors, i.e. visceral metastasis, anemia, LDH, PSA, PSA-doubling time, bone scan progression, pain, performance status (PS), are recognized to be prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to determine if the Charlson comorbidity Index (CCI) and hypertension (HTN) provide prognostic information independent of these known factors. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 221 patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel plus prednisone (DP) combined with AT-101 (bcl-2 antagonist) or placebo on a randomized phase II trial. Both arms of the trial were combined since no differences in outcomes or toxicities were observed. Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare data by comorbidity groups (CCI as a continuous variable, CCI = 6 vs. CCI ≥7 and HTN vs. no HTN). Cox regression analysis was done to identify whether CCI or HTN independently predicted OS after adjusting for trial stratification factors (pain, performance status), nomogram, risk-groups and PCWG-2 clinical sub-types. Results: CCI was 6 in 116 patients (52.7%) whereas it was 7 in 70 (31.8%), 8 in 23 (10.5%), 9 in (1.8%) and 10 in 7 patients (3.2%) respectively. HTN was present in 107 (48.6%) patients. Patients with HTN had increased CCI (mean CCI 7.0 vs. 6.43, p < 0.001). Patients with CCI of ≥7 were older and exhibited worse ECOG-PS and anemia than patients with CCI of 6 (p<0.05). CCI was not found to be independently predictive of OS on univariable and multivariable analyses. HTN alone or in combination with CCI was borderline significantly associated with OS (p~0.08) on both univariable and multivariable analyses. Conclusions: CCI did not predict OS independent of known prognostic factors in mCRPC. Age, performance status and anemia may adequately capture comorbidities in the context of mCRPC, given their association with higher CCI. Further analysis of HTN in a larger dataset may be warranted given its borderline independent association with OS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".