MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Response to androgen signaling (AS)-directed therapy after treatment with abiraterone acetate (AA) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Post hoc analysis of study COU-AA-302.

2014· article· en· W2590639172 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Smith, Shannon Matheny, Fred Saad, Dana E. Rathkopf, Peter F.A. Mulders, Johann S. de Bono, Eric J. Small, Neal D. Shore, Karim Fizazi, Thian Kheoh, Jinhui Li, Mary B. Todd, Thomas W. Griffin, Margaret K. Yu, Charles J. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbiraterone acetateEnzalutamidePost-hoc analysisProstate cancerInternal medicineDiscontinuationPrednisonePopulationOncologyAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerGastroenterologyUrologyAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

21 Background: In study COU-AA-302 of men with mCRPC and no prior chemotherapy, AA plus prednisone (hereafter AA) significantly increased radiographic progression-free survival. There is limited information about response to subsequent AS-directed therapies following AA. In this post hoc analysis of pts who received AA during study COU-AA-302, we evaluated clinical response to subsequent AA or enzalutamide (ENZ). Methods: In COU-AA-302, 546 pts were randomized and received AA. Subsequent response and discontinuation data from 88 pts receiving AS-directed therapy after study were collected retrospectively, source verified, and entered into the database. Median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression with 95% confidence intervals was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: As of May 2013, following AA on study, 55 pts received subsequent AA and 33 received subsequent ENZ. 69% (38/55) of pts in the AA then AA group and 67% (22/33) pts in the AA then ENZ group received intervening chemotherapy. Baseline patient characteristics were similar across both groups and to the overall COU-AA-302 population. Median (range) exposure to subsequent therapy was 4 (1-20) months for AA and 5 (1-12) months for ENZ. Response to subsequent AA or ENZ is summarized in the Table. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, pts previously treated with AA experienced modest clinical response on subsequent treatment with either AA or ENZ. These data support further studies of subsequent AS-targeted drugs following treatment with AA for mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT00887198. [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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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