MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of circulating tumor cell number as a transitional surrogate endpoint for survival in phase II trials for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2019· article· en· W2922152917 on OpenAlexaff
Howard I. Scher, Robert McCormack, Arturo Molina, Matthew R. Smith, Robert Dreicer, Fred Saad, Ronald de Wit, Karim Fizazi, Dana T. Aftab, Ana Limon, Martin Fleisher, Johann S. de Bono, Gary J. Kelloff, Glenn Heller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCirculating tumor cellSurrogate endpointClinical endpointOncologyInternal medicineClinical trialBiomarkerProstate-specific antigenOverall survivalUrologyPhases of clinical researchCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

143 Background: Short-term measures of response that reflect clinical benefit are a critical unmet need for clinical trials for mCRPC. Using data from 5 randomized mCRPC trials, we showed that a response endpoint (RE) based on a change in CTC number using the FDA cleared CellSearch® (Menarini) platform from any, (≥ 1, CTC any) to 0 (CTC0) per 7.5 ml of blood was associated strongly with overall survival (OS). Here we explored whether different CTC and PSA REs could serve as “transitional surrogates” defined as a biomarker validated in phase 2 but not in phase 3 trials for overall survival (OS), using the baseline and week 13 prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and CTC counts. Methods: Four 13-week REs were studied: (i) PSA50 (≥ 50% PSA decline from baseline), (ii) CTC0 (≥ 1 CTC/7.5 ml of blood at baseline and 0 CTCs at week 13), (iii) both PSA50 and CTC0, and (iv) either PSA50 or CTC0. The relative effectiveness of these REs as transitional surrogates for OS was evaluated at the patient level by discrimination, the separation between responder and non-responder survival curves, and at the trial level using explained variation, the accuracy in predicting k-month survival in a trial with the response proportion. Results: A total of 6081 pts were enrolled of whom 5660 (93%) survived until week 13 and among these patients 3080 (54%) had a baseline CTC count ≥ 1 and baseline PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml. At the patient level, separation between responder and non-responder survival curves over time was greater using CTC0 than PSA50 (average difference in survival probability 0.35 vs. 0.29, respectively). At the trial level, explained variation in survival over time was also greater for CTC0 than PSA50 (average R-squared 0.67 vs. 0.58, respectively). CTC/PSA combination REs did not improve on CTC0 at either level. Conclusions: The CTC0 RE provides stronger discrimination than PSA50 at the patient level and greater observed explained variation at the trial level. The results suggest that for the individual patient, a decrease in CTCs to zero at week 13 is a stronger indicator of longer term OS than the more widely used PSA50 and serves as a reasonably likely surrogate for OS in clinical trials.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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