MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence of CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, and LATITUDE eligibility criteria on utilization of abiraterone (A) and docetaxel (D).

2018· article· en· W2794337388 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shruti Parshad, Urban Emmenegger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerAbirateroneDocetaxelInternal medicineOncologyCancerAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

301 Background: A and D improve the survival of men with high-risk localized or metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (HNPC) when combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the two drugs differ regarding side effects, treatment duration, and associated costs. Furthermore, different eligibility criteria were used in the seminal phase III studies. Since the latter may impact on drug access in many constituencies, we decided to study how applying the eligibility criteria of CHAARTED, STAMPEDE and LATITUDE for drug funding purposes might influence the utilization of A versus D. Methods: 102 men with HNPC were referred from 06/2014 to 09/2017 to the medical oncology service at Odette Cancer Centre (Toronto/ON, Canada) for consideration of additional systemic therapy secondary to ADT. After extraction of baseline patient characteristics, we applied the eligibility criteria of CHAARTED (both high-volume [HV] and low-volume [LV] definition), STAMPEDE, and LATITUDE to determine the rate of men qualifying for treatment with A, D, or either of the two agents. Results: 98.0, 69.6, 28.4, and 47.1 percent of all 102 men fulfilled the STAMPEDE, CHAARTED-HV, CHAARTED-LV, and LATITUDE criteria, respectively. Considering that A funding for HNPC therapy is pending in Ontario, and that D funding is limited to men with CHAARTED-HV disease, the rate of D therapy was 62.0, 69.0, and 77.1 percent of patients conforming to STAMPEDE, CHAARTED-HV, and LATITUDE, respectively. 42 of 48 men (87.5%) conforming to LATITUDE would also be candidates for D, whereas 42 of 71 CHAARTED-HV patients (59.2%) would be eligible for A as alternative treatment. Hence, while all men fulfilling the STAMPEDE criteria (100 of 102, 98%) could be considered for either A or D, only 42 of 102 patients (41.2%) would be candidates for both of the drugs if the CHAARTED-HV and LATITUDE criteria were applied. Conclusions: In our patient population, applying the more restrictive CHAARTED-HV and LATITUDE criteria - as opposed to STAMPEDE - would result in around 30% or 50% fewer men offered D or A secondary to ADT, respectively. In addition, only around 40% of men would conform to both CHAARTED-HV and LATITUDE, and thus be candidates for both drugs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.575
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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