MP57-08 POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT TOXICITY AMONG MEN WITH CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Advanced (including Drug Therapy) IV1 Apr 2017MP57-08 POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT TOXICITY AMONG MEN WITH CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER Robert Nam, Christopher Wallis, Refik Saskin, Symron Bansal, Urban Emmenegger, and Raj Satkunasivam Robert NamRobert Nam More articles by this author , Christopher WallisChristopher Wallis More articles by this author , Refik SaskinRefik Saskin More articles by this author , Symron BansalSymron Bansal More articles by this author , Urban EmmeneggerUrban Emmenegger More articles by this author , and Raj SatkunasivamRaj Satkunasivam More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1782AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES There is little phase 4 data regarding the toxicity and effectiveness of contemporary metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatments. We examined hospital admissions and emergency room (ER) visits and survival among patients in the Province of Ontario treated with abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. METHODS We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of 2439 men over the age of 65 treated with abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or cabazitaxel for mCRPC from 2003-2015 in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes were toxicity (hospitalizations and ER visits) and overall survival. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying exposures to calculate hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS Among 2439 patients, cumulative exposure was greatest for docetaxel (n=1886 (77.3%); 11,436 person-months), followed by abiraterone (n=893 (36.6%); 5143 person-months), enzalutamide (n=52 (2.1%); 351 person-months) and cabazitaxel (n=18 (0.7%); 61 person-months). Abiraterone exposure was not significantly associated with any-cause (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.07) or treatment-related (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87-1.37) hospitalizations or ER visits. Enzalutamide was not significantly associated with any-cause (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.69-2.07) or treatment-related (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43-1.68) toxicity. Docetaxel exposure was associated with a significantly increased risk of any-cause (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15-1.44) and treatment-related (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.33-1.74) toxicity. Cabazitaxel exposure was also associated with treatment-related (HR 5.94, 95% CI 1.87-18.92) but not any-cause (HR 2.37, 95% CI 0.59-9.63) toxicity. Patients who began CRPC treatment after the introduction of oral therapies had improved overall survival compared with those treated prior to their introduction (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.77). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with metastatic CRPC, treatment with chemotherapy (docetaxel or cabazitaxel) is associated with an increased risk of hospitalizations and emergency room visits. We failed to show a significantly increased risk for patients treated with oral agents (abiraterone or enzalutamide). © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e766-e767 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Robert Nam More articles by this author Christopher Wallis More articles by this author Refik Saskin More articles by this author Symron Bansal More articles by this author Urban Emmenegger More articles by this author Raj Satkunasivam More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".