Cabazitaxel vs docetaxel in chemotherapy-naive (CN) patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): A three-arm phase III study (FIRSTANA).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5006 Background: The Phase III TROPIC study (NCT00417079) reported significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2IV Q3W plus prednisone 10 mg PO QD (P) vs. mitoxantrone plus P in mCRPC pts previously treated with a docetaxel (D)-containing regimen. The FIRSTANA study examined if cabazitaxel 20 mg/m² (C20) or 25 mg/m² (C25) IV Q3W plus P is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m² (D75) IV Q3W plus P in terms of OS in CN mCRPC pts. Methods: In this multinational, open label phase III study, mCRPC pts, ECOG PS 0-2, who had progressed after castration were randomized 1:1:1 to C20, C25 or D75 IV Q3W plus P. The primary endpoint was OS. Key secondary endpoints were safety, progression free survival (PFS), tumor PFS, tumor response (RECIST 1.1), PSA response, PSA PFS, pain response, pain PFS, time to skeletal-related events (SRE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1168 pts were randomized (C20=391, C25=389, D75=388). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar across cohorts. The median number of treatment cycles was 9 for all dose groups. In the ITT analysis, median OS was 24.5 months for C20, 25.2 months for C25 and 24.3 months for D75. HR for C20 vs. D75 was 1.009 (0.85 to 1.197, p=0.9967) and for C25 vs. D75 was 0.97 (0.819 to 1.16, p=0.7574), indicating that C20 and C25 were not superior to D75 in terms of OS. PFS was 4.4 months for C20, 5.1 months for C25 and 5.3 months for D75 (NS). Tumor responses were superior in C25 (41.6%) compared to D75 (30.9%), p=0.0370. Other secondary endpoints did not significantly differ across dose groups. Adverse events (AEs) grade 3-4 were 41.2% in C20, 60.1% in C25 and 46.0% in D75; pts discontinuing treatment due to an AE were 25.2% in C20, 31.7% in C25 and 33.9% in D75. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea and hematuria were more frequent in C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia and nail disorders were more frequent in D75. Conclusions: C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS compared to D75 in CN mCRPC pts. Among secondary endpoints only tumor responses were significantly superior for C25. AEs were less frequent in C20 for most categories. Clinical trial information: NCT01308567.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".