MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase II study of sunitinib (SU) for maintenance therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after response to docetaxel (D).

2011· article· en· W2559923310 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard J. Eigl, Marc Trudeau, Eric Winquist, K. N., Michael Eliasziw, Scott North

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDocetaxelClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectSunitinibChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchClinical trialOncologyUrologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

151 Background: After treatment with D based chemotherapy, there is currently no standard therapy although new options are emerging. Due to its mechanism of action, acceptable toxicity profile and simple administration, SU has potential for therapeutic activity in the setting of maintenance therapy for patients with mCRPC who have responded to D based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with mCRPC who had evidence of responding or stable disease at completion of D treatment were enrolled in this phase II multicentre trial. Patients received 50mg of SU daily on 4 week on/2 week off cycles. The primary endpoint was effect of SU maintenance on PFS. Because of potential effects of SU on PSA kinetics, clinical progression was defined independent of PSA. PSA response rate was a secondary endpoint. PSA-progression (PSA-P) was defined as a 25% PSA increase over baseline. Results: Thirteen patients have been enrolled and treated to date. Mean age was 63 years (47-76). ECOG scores of 0, 1, and 2 were reported for 4, 8 and 1 patients respectively. Mean number of prior cycles of D given was 9.5. A total of 28 cycles of SU were administered. A total of 291 adverse events (AEs) were recorded, of which 66%, 27%, and 7% were classified as Grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No Grade 4 AEs were seen. AEs were of a type and severity expected for SU. The most frequent grade 3 AEs were fatigue (n=3) and hand foot syndrome (n=3). No PSA responses have been documented. Most patients had immediate PSA increases without evidence of clinical progression. The mean PSAs increased by 159%, 396%, and 853% in Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, corresponding to p-values of 0.18, 0.03, and 0.01 when compared to the PSA-P threshold of 25%. The trial will continue to complete its planned accrual of 26 evaluable patients and updated results, along with PFS, will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: SU is well tolerated as maintenance therapy after D in men with mCRPC, with a predictable side-effect profile. PSA values after treatment with SU may not reflect progression in patients with mCRPCas significant increases were observed as early as Cycle 2 without clinical evidence of worsening disease. [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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNon-randomized 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→