Clinical outcomes in Caucasian (C), African American (AA) and Asian men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
186 Background: We have previously shown in multivariable analysis that African American (AA) men had 19% lower risk of death than Caucasian (C) men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with a docetaxel (D) prednisone (P) based regimen. The primary goal of this analysis was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and PSA PFS in C men, AA men, and Asian men with mCRPC treated with a DP based regimen. Methods: Individual patient data from 8,820 mCRPC men randomized on nine phase III trials to a DP containing regimen were combined. Race used in the analysis was based on self-report. The endpoints were PFS and PSA PFS. Per protocol definition of PFS was used in the analysis while PSA PFS was defined per PCWG3 criteria. The proportional hazards model was used to assess the prognostic importance of race in predicting PFS and PSA PFS, adjusting for treatment arm and prognostic factors that were common across the trials (performance status, and sites of metastases). Results: Of 8,820 patients, 7,528 (85%) were C, 500 (6%) were AA, 424 (5%) were Asian and 368 (4%) had race unspecified. Men with race unspecified were excluded from the analysis, leaving 8,452 men. Median PFS was 8.3 months (m) (95% CI = 8.1-8.5), 8.2 m (95% CI = 7.4-8.8), and 8.3 m (95% CI = 7.6-8.8) in C, AA and Asian men, respectively. In multivariable analysis adjusting for risk factors, the pooled hazard ratios for AA vs. C was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.94-1.15, p-value = 0.461) and 1.08 (95% CI = 0.96-1.21, p-value = 0.192) for Asian vs. C. PSA data were available for 6,685 (89%) C, 456 (91%) AA and 412 (97%) Asian men. Median PSA PFS were 9.7 m (95% CI = 9.4-10), 8.5 m (95% CI = 7.6-10) and 10.0 m (95% CI = 9.5-11.8) in C, AA and Asian, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the pooled hazard ratios were 1.05 (95% CI = 0.94-1.16, p-value = 0.408) for AA vs. C and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.82-1.22, p-value = 0.996) for Asian vs. C. Conclusions: There were no differences in PFS and PSA PFS outcomes in C, AA, or Asian men with mCRPC enrolled on these phase III clinical trials with DP. Clinical trial information: NCT00004001.
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) | 0.000 | 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".