MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Results of a phase II study of sunitinib (SU) maintenance after response to docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2013· article· en· W2590413398 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard J. Eigl, Misha Eliasziw, Scott North, Marc Trudeau, Eric Winquist, Kim N., Joseph D. Ruether

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreMedicine Hat CollegeBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityDocetaxelProstate cancerClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectSunitinibOncologyPhases of clinical researchProgression-free survivalUrologyClinical trialCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

153 Background: Docetaxel (D) remains the standard first cytotoxic therapy in mCRPC. Given its mechanism of action, acceptable toxicity profile and simple administration, SU had potential as maintenance therapy for mCRPC. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of SU monotherapy in patients (pts) with mCRPC who have responded to D. Methods: Pts withmCRPC and responding/stable disease at the time of D completion were enrolled in this multicentre trial. Pts received 50mg of SU daily on 4/2 week on/off cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined on the basis of RECIST criteria and worsening disease-related symptoms requiring further therapy. Because the effect of SU on PSA is not well known, PSA progression alone was not considered disease progression. PFS of 180 days was considered to be a clinically meaningful threshold for recommending further study of SU. PSA response was a secondary endpoint. The threshold for PSA-progression (PSA-P) was defined as a 25% increase in PSA over baseline. Results: Twenty-three pts were enrolled and treated. Mean age was 66.5 years (48-78). ECOG scores of 0, 1, and 2 were reported for 9, 13 and 1 pts respectively. Mean number of prior cycles of D was 8.6 (4-12). A total of 92 cycles of SU were administered; a mean of 4 per pt (1-11). Mean follow-up was 5.4 months (0.6-15). A total of 479 adverse events (AE) were recorded, of which 88% were Grade 1-2 and 12% were Grade 3-4. The AE were of a type and severity expected for SU. Three Grade 4s occurred, consisting of hepatitis, myelosuppression, and pneumonia. Median PFS was 133 days (95% CI: 48-154). Most pts had immediate PSA increases without evidence of disease progression, with the mean increases in PSA over baseline being 197%, 342%, and 1437% in Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p<0.05). Conclusions: Although SU was well tolerated as maintenance therapy with predictable side-effects, median PFS was lower than the predefined threshold of 180 days. PSA values were not informative as significant increases were observed as early as Cycle 2. This agent is not considered worthy of further investigation in this setting of maintenance therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00550810.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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