Statin use and survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e16503 Background: Statins have been associated with favorable effects in various solid malignancies. In prostate cancer, statins may synergize with novel anti-androgen agents enzalutamide and abiraterone via pharmacokinetic interactions and by decreasing substrate availability for androgen de-novo biosynthesis. Methods: Medical records of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) between September, 2011 and August, 2016 were reviewed at multiple participating centers. Results: 187 men received abiraterone, while 129 received enzalutamide. Patients treated with enzalutamide had a more advanced disease, with a median overall survival (OS) of 7.8 vs. 18 months in the abiraterone cohort. In the abiraterone cohort, statin use was a statistically significant prognostic factor for longer OS (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.59, p < 0.001) and statin users vs. non users had greater 30% PSA declines rates at 12 wks(77.9 vs. 52.9%, p < .01) In the enzalutamide cohort, statin use was not prognostic for survival or PSA declines. Conclusions: Our study suggests a prognostic effect of statins plus abiraterone but not enzalutamide for mCRPC. The mechanism of this interaction warrants elucidation but may include enhancing the anti-tumor activity of abiraterone as well as cardioprotective effects. [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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".