Outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide: Results from the phase III AFFIRM trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
16 Background: Enzalutamide (ENZA) inhibits multiple steps in the androgen receptor signaling pathway (Tran et al, Science. 2009;324:787). The phase III AFFIRM trial demonstrated that ENZA increased median overall survival (OS) by 4.8 months with a 37% reduction in the risk of death (P <0.001, HR 0.63) vs placebo (PBO) in post-docetaxel mCRPC patients (pts) (Scher et al, NEJM 2012; 367:1187). In a post-hoc analysis, the effect of ENZA on outcomes in elderly (≥ 75 yrs) vs younger (< 75 yrs) pts in the AFFIRM trial was assessed. Methods: The AFFIRM trial was a Phase III multinational, randomized, double-blind study in post-docetaxel mCRPC pts. Randomization was 2:1 to ENZA 160 mg/day or PBO, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean pain score. Statistics are presented by age group (≥75, yrs <75 yrs) for efficacy outcomes of OS, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. Top line safety results are also presented for both age groups. Results: Elderly pts comprised 25% (199/800) of ENZA pts and 26% (104/399) of PBO pts. Improved outcomes with ENZA treatment were observed in both elderly and younger pts, with similar safety profiles in each age group. Conclusions: ENZA significantly improved outcomes in both elderly (≥ 75yrs) and younger pts (< 75yrs). Safety and tolerability findings were comparable between the two age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT00974311. [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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".