MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tolerability and efficacy of anti-androgen manipulation versus taxotere and anti-androgen manipulation in patients with hormone-naive, high-risk/metastatic prostate cancer: A phase II, open-labeled, randomized study.

2011· article· en· W2559823317 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Pedley, J. Frew, James M. Wilson, A.R. Abdul Razak, Ashraf Azzabi, R. McMenemin, Jacqueline Stockley, Naeem Soomro, G. Durkan, Hing Y. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityProstate cancerInternal medicineAndrogen deprivation therapyRandomizationOncologyCancerClinical trialUrologyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

147 Background: Anti-androgen manipulation (AA) is considered the standard initial therapy for high-risk/metastatic prostate cancer. The role of chemotherapy and anti-androgen manipulation (TAA) is still undefined in this group. GenTax is a phase II trial investigating clinical outcome and gene profiling in prostate cancer before and after AA or TAA. Here we present the clinical outcome data. Methods: Patients with T3/4 disease, PSA ≥ 50 ng/ml or Gleason score ≥ 8, or metastatic disease were enrolled. Patients were randomised at histological diagnosis to AA or TAA (goserelin 3.6 mgs q28 ± taxotere 75 mg/m2 q21 for 6 cycles). TRUS biopsies were taken at randomisation and 22 weeks after treatment initiation. Clinical assessment including KPS, QOL using QLQ-C30, bloods/PSA were measured 3 weekly until 22 weeks then 3 monthly. Data was analysed for PFS, OS, toxicities and QOL. Results: 30 patients were recruited with 15 patients in each arm from 10/13/2005 to 12/02/2009. The median age was 62.2 yrs (range 48.9-75.1). All patients had a KPS of ≥ 90%. 12 (40%) and 18 (60%) of patients had stage 3 and 4 disease respectively. At randomization 10 patients had bone and 4 had visceral metastases. 29 had a Gleason score of ≥ 7. There were no statistical differences for age, KPS, disease stage or Gleason score between the two arms. Treatment was well tolerated in both groups with no G3-4 toxicity in the AA arm. In the TAA arm, 4 patients had dose delays or reductions; with one G3 incidence of neutropenia. G3-4 non-hematological toxicities were infrequent; fatigue and one episode of anaphylaxis occurring in separate patients. Median PFS and OS between the two treatments have not been reached at median follow up of 25 months. The 2-year PFS rate was not significantly different, (50% vs 60% p = 0.788) between the AA and TAA groups. There were no significant differences in QOL measures. Conclusions: Combination therapy of taxotere and anti-androgen manipulation is safe and well tolerated. The gene profiling results may provide important information in selecting patients who will benefit from more aggressive initial therapy. [Table: see text]

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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