MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pain palliation as an oncology label indication: Lessons learned in custirsen phase III development.

2014· article· en· W2589370503 on OpenAlexaff
Tomasz M. Beer, Sebastién J. Hotte, Johann S. de Bono, Philippe Beuzeboc, Nashat Gabrail, Daniel Cain, Cindy Jacobs, Karim Fizazi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelTaxanePlaceboCabazitaxelInternal medicineProstate cancerRegimenOncologyPhases of clinical researchSurgeryClinical trialCancerBreast cancerAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

222 Background: Durable pain palliation (dPP) in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a measure of clinical benefit suitable for a label indication. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study developed with FDA under a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) compared custirsen/taxane (cust/tax) to placebo/taxane (plac/tax) as second-line chemotherapy for patients (pts) with mCRPC with disease progression during or after first-line docetaxel. Primary efficacy was 12-week or more dPP. Other endpoints included overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (AEs), and ≥Gr 3 AEs. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to second-line taxane (docetaxel retreatment or cabazitaxel; based on prior docetaxel response, progression) + 640 mg custirsen or placebo. Eligible pts had to have baseline stable pain on consistent opioid-analgesic regimen. With a one-sided alpha of 0.025, power of 90%, and estimated difference in proportion of 25% vs. 10% dPP, the trial required 292 pts. Results: Trial was activated at a total of 62 sites and was stopped after 20 months (mo) with only 35 pts screened/14 pts enrolled. Requirements for baseline stable pain/analgesic use proved too restrictive to complete enrollment. Demographics were comparable. Prior response to first-line docetaxel occurred in 93% pts. Disease progression after first-line docetaxel based on bone scan (n=10) or prostate-specific antigen (n=4); median time from end of first-line to progression one mo. Treatment of a median thre cycles plac/tax arm compared to six cycles cust/tax arm. Three pts achieved dPP (n=1 [14%] plac/tax; n=2 [29%] cust/tax). Median OS (95% CI) was 7.8 (3.2, 11.5) mo plac/tax vs. 11.8 (9.8, 15.7) mo cust/tax. AEs greater than or equal to Gr 3 reported for two pts or more included: back pain (0 plac/tax; 2 cust/tax), hyperesthesia (0,2), asthenia (2,1). Serious AEs reported for nine subjects (4,5). Only serious AE reported in more than 1 pt was hyperesthesia, leading to study discontinuation (0, 2). Conclusions: Enrollment was not feasible due to restrictive trial criteria of stable baseline pain/consistent analgesia, which were too difficult to achieve. Thus, a survival based study has been launched and is recruiting, with monitoring of pain/analgesic use. Pragmatic criteria for oncology pain studies are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT01083615.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207