MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abiraterone or docetaxel in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A pooled analysis of castration resistance-free survival and toxicity.

2018· article· en· W2790074491 on OpenAlexaff
Joelle Helou, Charles Catton, Glenn Bauman, Rouhi Fazelzad, Jacques Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDocetaxelAndrogen deprivation therapyInternal medicineHazard ratioSubgroup analysisMeta-analysisCastrationOncologyToxicityCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

354 Background: Recent meta-analyses suggested an improvement in overall survival (OS) with the addition of Abiraterone (A) vs Docetaxel (D) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. However, none have reported castration resistance-free survival (CFS) and toxicity data; two clinically relevant outcomes for physicians and patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess CFS and toxicity of adding A or D to ADT in men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE, were searched for randomized controlled trials. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for CFS, and pooled risk ratios (RR) for grade 3 or higher toxicity were analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and generic inverse variance. To account for between-studies heterogeneity, random-effect models were used to compute pooled estimates. Subgroup analyses compared patients on A and D in terms of CFS. Results: Five studies were included. The addition of A or D to ADT decreased the risk of development of castration-resistance by 53% (5 studies, 4,462 participants, HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67). In a subgroup analysis, the addition of A seemed to be better than D for the outcome CFS (5 studies, HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.27-0.34 versus HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.56-0.69, test for subgroup difference, p< 0.001). Different profiles of toxicity were seen with A and D. While A increased the risk of hypokalemia (3,107 participants, HR = 6.63, 95% CI 3.5-12.5) and cardiac toxicity (3,107 participants, HR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.7-3.3), D increased the risk of neutropenia (2,151 participants, HR = 13, 95% CI 8.9-18.8) and neuropathy (2,151 participants, HR = 2.25, 95% CI 1.18-4.3). Conclusions: The addition of A and D to ADT increases CFS in men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer, with a longer CFS noted for A compared to D. Considering CFS and OS, A may be preferred to D as initial therapy. Toxicity profiles differed between A and D. Quality of life and cost differences between A and D are other important factors and were not considered in this analysis.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.042
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207