Second interim analysis (IA2) results from a phase II trial of TAK-385, an oral GnRH antagonist, in prostate cancer patients (pts).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
200 Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists achieve rapid decrease in testosterone (T) without transient T surge seen with GnRH agonists and thus may avoid clinical flare symptomatology. TAK-385 is an investigational, oral, non-peptide GnRH antagonist highly selective for the human GnRH receptor (IC 50 0.12 nM). We report IA2 results from a phase 2, randomized, open label, parallel group study of TAK-385 in pts with advanced prostate cancer (NCT02083185). Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 yrs with histologically confirmed prostate cancer, baseline T > 150 ng/dL and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 2 ng/mL, who were candidates for first-line androgen deprivation therapy, were randomized to receive oral TAK-385, 80 or 120 mg, once daily (QD) or leuprorelin (LEU) 22.5 mg subcutaneously every 12 wks, for 48 wks. The primary endpoint was effective castration rate of TAK-385 (T < 50 ng/dL) from wk 5–24. Secondary endpoints included: safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and PSA. Results: At data cut-off, 75 pts had received TAK-385 (39 at 80 mg, 36 at 120 mg QD); 20 pts received LEU. Median age was 73 yrs with TAK-385 and 68.5 yrs with LEU; median treatment duration was 35.1 wks and 37.8 wks. After 3 days/4 wks/24 wks of treatment, median T was 36.9/10.6/8.9 ng/dL with TAK385 vs 648.1/13.0/11.5 ng/dL with LEU. T < 50 ng/dL was sustained over 5–24 wks in 92% vs 95% of pts (TAK-385 vs LEU). After 24 wks, PSA was reduced by 97.3% to a median of 0.1 ng/mL with TAK-385 vs 92.4% to 0.2 ng/mL with LEU. All-grade adverse events occurred in 91% vs 95% of pts (TAK-385 vs LEU); the most common were hot flush (59/60%), fatigue (21/15%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (9/10%), nasopharyngitis (8/5%), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (5/10%). Initial analysis of pooled phase 1/2 data showed similar PK in the phase 2 pts and in previously studied healthy men, with dose-proportional plasma trough levels over > 6 mos. Conclusions: At IA2, the efficacy of TAK-385 was consistent with the GnRH antagonist mechanism of action and the safety profile was good. TAK-385 rapidly reduced T and sustained castration ( < 50 ng/dL) over 24 wks. Further investigation of TAK-385, as an option to injectable GnRH therapies, is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02083185.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".