MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of quality of life (QOL), cognitive function and depression in a randomized phase II study of abiraterone acetate (ABI) plus prednisone (P) vs enzalutamide (ENZA) for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2017· article· en· W2766663577 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Khalaf, Katherine Sunderland, Bernhard J. Eigl, Daygen L. Finch, Conrad D. Oja, Joanna Vergidis, Sunil Parimi, Muhammad Zulfiqar, Martin Gleave, Kim N.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineEnzalutamideQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineProstate cancerDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialOncologyPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentCancerDiseaseAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5036 Background: ABI + P and ENZA treatments are associated with side effects that may impair QOL. ENZA has been associated with cognitive and memory impairment. There has been no direct comparison between these agents and their effect on these domains. Methods: Randomized phase II trial of ABI + P vs ENZA as 1st-line therapy for mCRPC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02125357). FACT-P QOL questionnaire, patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were completed throughout the study. The proportion of patients with a clinically significant change in FACT-P (10 points total FACT-P score, 3 points FACT-P subscales), worsening of PHQ-9 depression symptom severity (none = 0-4, mild = 5-9, moderate = 10-14, moderate-severe = 15-19, severe ≥20) and decline in MoCA cognitive impairment level (normal = 27-30, mild = 18-26, moderate = 10-17, severe ˂ 10) at week 12 was compared between study arms for this analysis. Results: From 202 patients (pts) accrued, there were 162, 145 and 142 pts with baseline and 12-week FACT-P, PHQ-9 and MoCA assessment. Median baseline FACT-P, PHQ-9 and MoCA scores were similar in both arms. From baseline to 12 weeks, the median total FACT-P score improved in the ABI + P arm (115 to 128, P = 0.02), but there was no change in the ENZA arm (114 to 114, P = 1.00). There was a higher rate of significant worsening for the physical well-being (PWB) subscale for ENZA vs ABI + P (TABLE), but not for the other FACT-P subscales. There was a higher rate of worsening in depression severity in the ENZA arm (TABLE), although worsening to a moderate-severe/severe level occurred in only 2 patients. There was also a trend for worsening in cognitive impairment for the ENZA arm (TABLE). Conclusions: These data suggest there are distinct differences between ABI + P vs ENZA and their effects on QOL, mood symptoms and cognitive function. Clinical trial information: NCT02125357. [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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.540
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207