MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hepatic effects assessed by review of safety data in enzalutamide castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) trials.

2018· article· en· W2794109715 on OpenAlexaff
Tomasz M. Beer, Simon Chowdhury, Fred Saad, Neal D. Shore, Celestia S. Higano, Peter Iversen, Karim Fizazi, Kurt Miller, Axel Heidenreich, Choung‐Soo Kim, De Phung, Jeffrey Kent Barrus, Natalia Nikolayeva, Andrew Krivoshik, Javier C. Waksman, Bertrand Tombal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideProstate cancerInternal medicineMedDRAAdverse effectPlaceboOncologyCancerAndrogen receptorPharmacovigilancePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

199 Background: Androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide (ENZA) improves survival in patients with metastatic CRPC. As the liver is the main route of ENZA elimination, this post hoc analysis evaluated the hepatic effects of ENZA versus comparators in controlled CRPC trials. Methods: Safety data from two large Phase 3, placebo (PBO)- (PREVAIL, NCT0121299; AFFIRM, NCT00974311) and two smaller Phase 2, bicalutamide (BIC)-controlled (STRIVE, NCT01664923; TERRAIN, NCT01288911) ENZA trials in men with CRPC were assessed for hepatic impairment-related adverse events (AEs) using the following standardized narrow MedDRA queries V19.1: hepatic failure, fibrosis and cirrhosis, and other liver damage-related conditions; hepatitis, non-infectious; and liver-related investigation, signs, and symptoms. Liver-related laboratory test results were also evaluated. Data were summarized as follows: patients receiving ENZA in Phase 3 trials (n = 1671); patients receiving ENZA in Phase 2 trials (n = 380); patients receiving PBO (n = 1243); patients receiving BIC (n = 387); and combined ENZA-treated patients (n = 2051). Results: Percentages of hepatic impairment-related AEs ranged between 2.9% and 4.5% with ENZA, and were 2.7% with PBO and 5.4% with BIC (Table). The most common hepatic impairment-related AEs were increased aspartate (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT; Table). Within each trial, the incidences of grade ≥3 AEs were similar, and dose reductions or discontinuations due to hepatic impairment-related AEs were low (Table). When adjusted for treatment exposure, AEs per 100 patient-years were lower with ENZA versus either PBO or BIC (Table). Conclusions: This combined analysis of CRPC trials demonstrates no hepatic safety signal with ENZA and thus routine liver tests are not required. Clinical trial information: NCT0121299; NCT00974311; NCT01664923; NCT01288911. [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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→