Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with olaparib in combination with abiraterone.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
234 Background: A Phase II trial showed that addition of olaparib (O) to abiraterone (A) led to significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit for patients (pts) with mCRPC vs placebo (P) + A (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.97). We report predefined exploratory HRQoL analyses. Methods: This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled pts with mCRPC, post-docetaxel. Pts were randomized (71 per arm) to receive either O (300 mg bd, tablets) + A (1000 mg od) or P + A; all received prednisone (5 mg bd). Pts completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P total score [TS]; range 0–156, higher score = better HRQoL), Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form (BPI-SF) and worst bone pain (wbp) questionnaires (both range 0–10, higher score = more severe pain). Adjusted mean change from baseline was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures, improvement by logistic regression and deterioration by log-rank test. Results: Overall compliance rates (O + A vs P + A) were 97% vs 96%, 92% vs 85%, and 96% vs 92% for FACT-P, BPI-SF and wbp, respectively. Best FACT-P TS response of ‘improved’ (increase ≥6 points from baseline at two consecutive visits) was reported by 22/67 (33%) evaluable pts in the O + A vs 18/64 (28%) pts in the P + A arm; the odds ratio (1.32; 95% CI 0.64–2.78) favored the O + A arm. Best FACT-P TS response of ‘worsened’ (decrease ≥6 points from baseline) was reported by 15 (22%) vs 22 (34%) pts. Adjusted mean change from baseline in FACT-P TS across all visits was -0.60 vs -2.09 in the O + A and P + A arms, respectively (difference 1.48; 95% CI -3.96–6.92). Time to deterioration (TTD) results are shown in the table. Clinical trial information: NCT01972217. Conclusions: Whilst not statistically significant, in this study a higher percentage of pts treated with O + A vs P + A had improved HRQoL, with fewer pts negatively affected. Ongoing phase III studies will help elucidate the impact of O on HRQoL in pts with mCRPC. (NCT01972217)[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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".