Radiographic Progression-Free Survival as a Clinically Meaningful End Point in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Drug development for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer has been limited by a lack of clinically relevant trial end points short of overall survival (OS). Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) as defined by the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 (PCWG2) is a candidate end point that represents a clinically meaningful benefit to patients. Objective: To demonstrate the robustness of the PCWG2 definition and to examine the relationship between rPFS and OS. Design, Setting, and Participants: PREVAIL was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multinational study that enrolled 1717 chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from September 2010 through September 2012. The data were analyzed in November 2016. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo until confirmed radiographic disease progression or a skeletal-related event and initiation of either cytotoxic chemotherapy or an investigational agent for prostate cancer treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity analyses (SAs) of investigator-assessed rPFS were performed using the final rPFS data cutoff (May 6, 2012; 439 events; SA1) and the interim OS data cutoff (September 16, 2013; 540 events; SA2). Additional SAs using investigator-assessed rPFS from the final rPFS data cutoff assessed the impact of skeletal-related events (SA3), clinical progression (SA4), a confirmatory scan for soft-tissue disease progression (SA5), and all deaths regardless of time after study drug discontinuation (SA6). Correlations between investigator-assessed rPFS (SA2) and OS were calculated using Spearman ρ and Kendall τ via Clayton copula. Results: In the 1717 men (mean age, 72.0 [range, 43.0-93.0] years in enzalutamide arm and 71.0 [range, 42.0-93.0] years in placebo arm), enzalutamide significantly reduced risk of radiographic progression or death in all SAs, with hazard ratios of 0.22 (SA1; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27), 0.31 (SA2; 95% CI, 0.27-0.35), 0.21 (SA3; 95% CI, 0.18-0.26), 0.21 (SA4; 95% CI, 0.17-0.26), 0.23 (SA5; 95% CI, 0.19-0.30), and 0.23 (SA6; 95% CI, 0.19-0.30) (P < .001 for all). Correlations of rPFS and OS in enzalutamide-treated patients were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92) by Spearman ρ and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68-0.77) by Kendall τ. Conclusions and Relevance: Sensitivity analyses in PREVAIL demonstrated the robustness of the PCWG2 rPFS definition using additional measures of progression. There was concordance between central and investigator review and a positive correlation between rPFS and OS among enzalutamide-treated patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01212991.
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 | 0.053 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".