MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Population-based impact on overall survival (OS) after the introduction of docetaxel as standard therapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

2013· article· en· W2589592541 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Zielinski, Scott Tyldesley, Kim N.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelProstate cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineCohortPopulationOncologyRadiation therapyConfidence intervalCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

77 Background: Docetaxel (DOC) was the first systemic therapy to improve OS (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.79) for patients (pts) with CRPC and a standard therapy since 2004. Because of the potential for severe toxicity with DOC, its use has been subject to pt selection. Even with this selective use, we sought to determine whether the introduction of docetaxel has improved OS at a population level. Methods: We performed aretrospective review of all CRPC pts treated with palliative radiotherapy (PRT) to bone metastases in the province of British Columbia, Canada. The pre-docetaxel cohort (pre-D) received PRT from 1998-2001. The docetaxel-era cohort (post-D)received PRT from 2006-2009. Time of first PRT to bone was used to select pts at a similar point in their disease state (i.e., onset of bone pain). Mortality and cause of death was attained from public registries. OS was calculated from time of first PRT using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: Comparative baseline characteristics for the 1876 patients split into the pre-D (n=919) and post-D (n=957) eras were: metastatic at diagnosis 30% vs. 33% (p = 0.09), median age at PRT 75.5 vs. 76.7 years (p=0.04), time from diagnosis to PRT 3.9 vs. 3.1 years (p = 0.31), received DOC 7% vs. 37% (p < 0.0001). Median OS from time of first PRT was 7.5 months (m) vs. 10.3 m (HR: 0.79, 95% Confidence Interval 0.70 – 0.89, p < 0.0001) in the pre-D and post-D cohorts respectively. Within the post-D cohort, the median OS from time of RT was longer in pts receiving DOC at 13.9 m vs. 7.4 m for pts not receiving DOC (p=0.004). Conclusions: In this population based analysis, the introduction of DOC as a standard of care was associated with a significant improvement in OS even though DOC penetrance was <50%. This demonstrates for the first time the generalizability of the TAX-327 study results to the population at large. Even as the therapeutic landscape for CRPC evolves with the introduction of new agents that improve OS with favourable toxicity profiles, these data support the continued use of DOC in appropriately selected patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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