MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall survival (OS) and safety of dasatinib/docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Results from the randomized phase III READY trial.

2013· article· en· W2537692172 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Araujo, Géralyn C. Trudel, Fred Saad, Andrew J. Armstrong, Evan Y. Yu, Joaquim Bellmunt, George Wilding, John McCaffrey, Sérgio Serrano, В. Б. Матвеев, Eleni Efstathiou, Stéphane Oudard, Michael J. Morris, Bruce Sizer, Peter J. Goebell, Johann S. de Bono, Prashni Paliwal, S DURHAM, Shinta Cheng, Christopher J. Logothetis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalBristol-Myers Squibb (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelDasatinibClinical endpointInternal medicineProstate cancerHazard ratioUrologyOncologyProgression-free survivalPhases of clinical researchRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyCancerTyrosine kinaseClinical trialChemotherapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA8 Background: SRC kinases may contribute to androgen independence of mCRPC.Dasatinib (DAS) inhibits tyrosine kinases including SRC kinases with preclinical evidence for antimetastatic activity, inhibition of osteoclast function in tumor microenvironment, and synergistic activity with docetaxel (D). In phase I/II trials of mCRPC patients (pts), DAS in combination with D had an acceptable safety profile with objective response rates (ORR) improved over historical data and decreased levels of bone turnover markers. Methods: READY was a multinational, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study. Pts with mCRPC (n = 1,522) were randomized (1:1) to receive either D 75 mg/m2q3wk + prednisone with double-blinded DAS 100 mg qd (DAS/D, n = 762) or placebo (PBO/D, n = 760). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were ORR, time to first skeletal-related event (TFSRE), time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TPSAP), urinary N-telopeptide (uNTX) reduction, pain reduction, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: No OS difference between DAS/D and PBO/D (median, 21.5 vs. 21.2 mos; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; log-rank P = 0.90) was observed. Results of secondary endpoints for DAS/D vs. PBO/D were: ORR (30.5 vs. 31.9%); TFSRE (median, not reached vs. 31.1 mos; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.64-1.02]); uNTX reduction (66.0 vs. 60.6%); PFS (median, 11.8 vs. 11.1 mos; HR, 0.92); TPSAP (median, 8.0 vs. 7.6 mos; HR, 0.91), and pain reduction (66.6 vs. 71.5%). Twenty-three percent of DAS/D and 14% of PBO/D pts received therapy for <3 mos. Most common AEs in DAS/D arm included diarrhea, fatigue, alopecia, and nausea. Grade 3-4 AEs of interest for DAS/D vs. PBO/D included anemia (8.0 vs.5.9%), neutropenia (6.2 vs. 5.5%), hypocalcemia (3.5 vs.3.1%), GI bleeding (2.6 vs.1.3%), and pleural effusion (1.3 vs. 0.4%). Conclusions: The addition of DAS to standard-of-care chemotherapy in mCRPC pts did not improve OS. There was a modest reduction in the risk of TFSRE with DAS/D vs. PBO/D. With a median follow-up of 19 mos of 761 DAS/D-treated pts, no unexpected toxicities for DAS were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT00744497.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207