MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Denosumab and zoledronic acid treatment in patients with genitourinary cancers and bone metastases.

2013· article· en· W2599008969 on OpenAlexaff
Luís Costa, Karim Fizazi, Fred Saad, Janet E. Brown, Roger von Moos, Stéphane Oudard, Cora N. Sternberg, Vinod Ganju, Kurt Miller, Huei Wang, Tapan Maniar, Ada Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabZoledronic acidProstate cancerInternal medicineUrologyOncologyGenitourinary systemAdverse effectCancerSurgeryOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5079 Background: Phase III trial results showed that denosumab is superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with cancer and metastatic bone disease (Lipton et al; 2012, Eur J Cancer). Genitourinary (GU) cancers are some of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide. We now compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab (DMAb) or ZA in a subgroup analysis of patients with GU cancers enrolled in the pivotal phase III trials. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DMAb (120 mg, SC) or ZA (4 mg, IV, adjusted for renal function) every 4 weeks. Daily calcium and vitamin D supplements were strongly recommended. Time to 1st on-study SRE, using a Cox proportional hazards model, time to 1st and subsequent on-study SRE, using the Anderson-Gill model, and safety were evaluated for the GU subgroup in an ad hoc analysis. Results: 2,128 patients (1,052 DMAb; 1,076 ZA) had GU cancers (prostate = 1,901, renal = 155, bladder = 63, and transitional cell = 9). DMAb significantly delayed the time to 1st on-study SRE by 4.0 months compared with ZA (20.7 months vs 16.7 months) in patients with GU cancers (Table). DMAb also significantly delayed the time to 1st and subsequent on-study SRE. Time to disease progression and overall survival were similar between treatment groups. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported by similar percentages of patients in both groups (AEs: 96.9% denosumab, 96.8% ZA; serious AEs: 62.8% denosumab, 60.2% ZA). 14.6% of DMAb pts and 15.9% of ZA pts had a renal AE. Hypocalcemia was reported for 12.9% of DMAb patients and 6.2% of ZA patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw between the DMAb (2.2%) and ZA (1.6%) groups (p=0.34). Conclusions: Among patients with GU cancers and metastatic bone disease, DMAb was superior to ZA in preventing SREs. Clinical trial information: NCT00330759 and NCT00321620. [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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→