MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic stratification of post-docetaxel metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) from a phase III randomized trial.

2012· article· en· W2600486674 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Sonpavde, Gregory R. Pond, Stephen Clarke, Janette L. Vardy, Shaw‐Ling Wang, Jolanda Paolini, Mariajosé Lechuga, M. Dror Michaelson, Isan Chen, Edna Chow Maneval

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelInternal medicineProstate cancerOncologyProportional hazards modelClinical endpointChemotherapyGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4644 Background: A prognostic model for mCRPC post docetaxel is necessary to guide therapy. We retrospectively analyzed a phase III trial enrolling progressive mCRPC following docetaxel to construct a prognostic model. Additionally, we studied the impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a potential marker for inflammatory and immune state. Methods: A phase III trial (SUN-1120) comparing prednisone combined with sunitinib (N=584) or placebo (N=289) for mCRPC following docetaxel-based chemotherapy was evaluated. The treatment arms were combined for analysis, since no statistical difference was observed in the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS). A logarithmic transformation was applied to non-normal factors. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for OS estimation. To identify an optimal prognostic model for survival, we used a Cox proportional hazards regression methods with forward stepwise selection, stratifying for ECOG PS, progression type (PSA or radiographic) and treatment group. A risk score was calculated and patients were categorized into risk groups to assess model performance. Results: Data from patients without missing data (n=806) were used to construct an optimal model. The factors used in the model that remained individually significant in multivariate analysis were: log-LDH (HR 2.77 [95% CI=2.23, 3.44], p<0.001), hemoglobin (0.81 [0.76, 0.87], p<0.001), log-NLR (1.63 [1.38, 1.92], p<0.001), >1 organ involved (1.53 [1.24, 1.88], p<0.001), log-alkaline phosphatase (1.14 [1.01, 1.30], p=0.041) and log-PSA (1.07 [1.00, 1.13], p=0.036). No clear cutpoints were identified; thus, these prognostic factors were used to group patients into 3 equally sized risk categories. Low, medium and high risk patients (n=268-270 per group) had median (95% CI) OS estimates of 23.7 (21.4-not reached), 13.5 (11.6-15.8) and 7.3 (6.3-8.4) months, respectively. Conclusions: A prognostic risk model with readily available variables significantly discriminated between outcomes in post-docetaxel mCRPC and may provide valuable information in future studies. High NLR was associated with an independent poor prognostic impact, and warrants prospective validation.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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