MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): A randomized phase II trial.

2018· article· en· W2889698651 on OpenAlexaff
Noel W. Clarke, Paweł Wiechno, B. Yа. Alekseev, Núria Sala, Robert H. Jones, Ivo Kocák, Vincenzo Emanuele Chiurì, Jacek Jassem, Aude Fléchon, Charles H. Redfern, Carsten Goessl, Joseph E. Burgents, Robert Kozarski, Darren Hodgson, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOlaparibInternal medicinePlaceboClinical endpointProstate cancerAbirateroneProgression-free survivalOncologyUrologyRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyCancerChemotherapyPathologyAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5003 Background: mCRPC pts with a homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) previously showed improved response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) as monotherapy vs pts without a HRRm (Mateo J et al, NEJM 2015). We report data from a Phase II, placebo-controlled trial of olaparib combined with the anti-hormonal therapy abiraterone in post-chemotherapy mCRPC pts whose tumors did not need to have a HRRm (NCT01972217). Methods: mCRPC pts were randomized (1:1) post-docetaxel to olaparib 300 mg bid (tablets; combination) or placebo (comparator) plus abiraterone (1000 mg od) and treated until disease progression. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS; RECIST 1.1, PCWG-2). HRRm status was assessed using optional tumor (n = 68), whole-blood and plasma samples. Results: 142 pts (median age: 69 yrs) were randomized and treated (both arms, n = 71). Overall, a statistically significant increase in rPFS was seen with the combination vs comparator (Table; P= 0.03). A rPFS benefit in the combination arm was suggested irrespective of HRRm status. Median overall survival was 23.3 vs 20.9 mths in the combination vs comparator arms, respectively (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58–1.35). 54% vs 28% of pts, respectively, had grade ≥3 AEs; 34% vs 18% reported serious AEs, including more cardiovascular AEs with the combination. 30% vs 10% of pts, respectively, discontinued treatment due to an AE. Median time to deterioration in quality of life (QoL; FACT-P) was 5.7 vs 6.0 mths, respectively (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68–1.40). Conclusions: This is the first trial to show clinical benefit for mCRPC pts treated with a PARP inhibitor combined with abiraterone, regardless of HRRm status. Safety data were less favorable for the combination, but no detriment to QoL was seen. Our study indicates synergy between olaparib and abiraterone. Clinical trial information: NCT01972217.rPFS by HRRm status. Pt group Median rPFS,* mths (combination vs comparator) HR (95% CI) Overall, n = 142 13.8 vs 8.2 0.65 (0.44–0.97) HRRm, n = 21 17.8 vs 6.5 0.74 (0.26–2.12) HRRwt,† n = 35 15.0 vs 9.7 0.52 (0.24–1.15) HRRm unknown, n = 86 13.1 vs 6.4 0.67 (0.40–1.13) *Kaplan-Meier method; †tumor test result required. wt, wild-type.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207