Treatment patterns after abiraterone acetate in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Post hoc analysis of COU-AA-302.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
168 Background: Treatment patterns of mCRPC have changed substantially in the last few years. In COU-AA-302 (chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC), abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival vs placebo plus prednisone (P). There is limited information about treatment patterns after AA. In this post hoc analysis of pts in the AA treatment arm who progressed, we characterized subsequent therapy after pts discontinued study drug. Methods: In COU-AA-302, 546 pts were randomized and received AA. Treatment patterns of pts receiving ≥ 1 subsequent therapy for mCRPC after progressing on AA were collected retrospectively and source verified. Results: As of March 2014, 8% (44/546) of pts continued on AA; 67% (365/546) received ≥ 1 subsequent therapy for mCRPC. 36% (194/546) and 15% (83/546) of pts had ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 subsequent therapies, respectively. 80% (435/543) of pts in the P arm had ≥ 1 subsequent therapy. Most frequent subsequent therapy in AA pts was taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel [DOC], cabazitaxel [CBZ]), androgen signaling–directed therapy (AA, enzalutamide [ENZ], ketoconazole [KETO]), and immunotherapy (sipuleucel-T [SIP-T]) (Table). Among AA pts who received DOC as first subsequent therapy, median age was 69 years; median duration of DOC post-AA (n = 261) was 3 months (IQR: 0.95-5.7); and PSA progression was the most common reason for discontinuation. Among AA pts with baseline PSA and ≥ 1 post-baseline PSA value, 40% (40/100) had ≥ 50% PSA decline (27/100 confirmed responses) with first subsequent DOC chemotherapy. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis indicates that treatment with subsequent therapy was common (67% and 80%) in pts with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC who progressed with AA or P, respectively. PSA decline suggests antitumor activity in pts who progressed with AA and received subsequent DOC. Despite limitations of a retrospective analysis, these data support further assessment of subsequent therapy following AA treatment for mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT00887198. [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 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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".