MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Regional differences in cardiovascular status and events in prostate cancer patients treated with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist vs antagonist: Results of a pooled analysis.

2015· article· en· W2920844027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anders Neijber, E. David Crawford, Thomas E. Keane, Zsolt Bosnyák, Anders Malmberg, Michael Borre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Myocardial infarctionProportional hazards modelCumulative incidenceCancerGynecologyCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16096 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for advanced prostate cancer (PCa) may increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. A pooled analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of CV events or death in men with pre-existing CV disease (CVD) treated with degarelix vs GnRH agonists. We now report regional differences in baseline CV status and incidence of CV events in degarelix- and GnRH agonist-treated men. Methods: Individual patient level data on baseline CVD and subsequent CV events were pooled from 3 qualifying ( > 6 months exposure) phase 3 trials. CV events were analysed by geographic region: USA/Canada vs Europe and compared using cumulative incidence functions with all-cause mortality as the competing risk and Cox regression analyses. Results: Of 1737 men treated with degarelix and GnRH agonists, 404 (36.1%) and 215 (34.7%) had baseline CVD, respectively. By region, baseline CVD prevalence was similar between Europe (37.4%) and USA/Canada (33.5%; p = 0.085). However, CVD history was more severe in USA/Canada, (e.g. more myocardial infarction and coronary intervention). The presence of multiple CV risk factors were more frequent at baseline in the USA/Canada vs Europe (e.g. smoking [61.1% vs 39.0%], treated type 2 diabetes [17.9% vs 7.0%] and obesity [34.2% vs 16.7%], respectively) (p < 0.05). In men with baseline CVD, the cumulative incidence of a CV event was higher in USA/Canada (9.4, 95% CI 5.7–14.0) than Europe (3.5; 95% CI 1.9–5.7), p = 0.006 (Gray’s test). The treatment hazard ratio (HR; GnRH agonist as reference) was similar in the two regions (group-by-region interaction p = 0.979) with a homogenous HR of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20–0.87). Conclusions: Despite a similar proportion of patients with pre-existing CVD by region, baseline CV risk factors were more common and prior CVD more severe in USA/Canada vs Europe. Therefore geographical differences in the 1-year CV event risk (greater in USA/Canada) are likely due to patient clinical characteristics. Similar reduction in the risk of CV events compared to agonist was seen in degarelix patients in Europe and USA/Canada in line with the earlier reported overall rate.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.020
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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