PROSPER: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study of enzalutamide (ENZA) in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3 Background: Men with M0 CRPC and rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are at high risk of developing metastatic (M1) CRPC. ENZA improves overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival in men with M1 CRPC. We hypothesized that ENZA will improve metastasis-free survival (MFS) in men with M0 CRPC. Methods: Eligible men with M0 CRPC, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 mo and PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL at screening continued androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and were randomized 2:1 to ENZA 160 mg or PBO. The primary endpoint was MFS. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression, time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy, OS and safety. Results: In 1401 men, ENZA significantly prolonged median MFS (36.6 mo vs 14.7 mo [ P < .0001]), time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy (39.6 mo vs 17.7 mo [ P < .0001]) and time to PSA progression (37.2 mo vs 3.9 mo [ P < .0001]) compared to PBO (Table). In the first interim analysis of OS there was a trend in favor of ENZA (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; P = .1519). Median duration of treatment was 18.4 mo vs 11.1 mo for ENZA vs PBO. Adverse events (AEs) were higher with ENZA vs PBO (any grade: 87% vs 77%; grade ≥ 3: 31% vs 23%; serious: 24% vs 18%); 10% with ENZA discontinued treatment due to AE vs 8% with PBO. Conclusions: In men with M0 CRPC and rapidly rising PSA, ENZA treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 71% reduction in the risk of developing M1 CRPC. AEs were consistent with the established safety profile of ENZA. Clinical trial information: NCT02003924. [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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".