MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Age-related efficacy and safety of apalutamide (APA) plus ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in subgroups of patients (pts) with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): Post hoc analysis of SPARTAN.

2019· article· en· W2946874178 on OpenAlexaff
Julie N. Graff, Matthew R. Smith, Fred Saad, Boris Hadaschik, Hiroji Uemura, Ji Youl Lee, Paul N. Mainwaring, David Olmos, Stéphane Oudard, Anil Londhe, Amitabha Bhaumik, Oliver Brendan Rooney, Angela Lopez‐Gitlitz, Eric J. Small

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 cancerInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRandomizationPlaceboAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerOncologyUrologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5024 Background: SPARTAN, a randomized phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled study in pts with high-risk nmCRPC and PSA doubling time ≤ 10 mo, showed that, compared with PBO, addition of APA to ongoing ADT treatment (tx) prolonged metastasis-free survival (MFS) by > 2 y, reduced the risk of symptomatic progression by 55%, and increased second progression-free survival (PFS2), which is the time from randomization to disease progression on first subsequent anticancer tx, or death. The impact of APA in terms of benefit and safety profile was evaluated in pts aged < 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 y. Methods: Pts with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to APA (240 mg QD) or PBO; ADT was continuous. APA effect was analyzed by Cox models and Kaplan-Meier methods across age subgroups. Results: Baseline characteristics among age groups were similar, although ECOG PS 1 vs 0 increased with age. MFS benefit with APA was highly significant for all age subgroups (Table). In pts ≥ 75 y, MFS risk with APA vs PBO was reduced by 59%; MFS risk was reduced by 86% and 76% for pts < 65 and 65-74 y, respectively. Risk of PFS2 with APA vs PBO was reduced across all age subgroups. PFS2 in pts < 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 y: HR, 0.09 (p < 0.0001); HR, 0.56 (p = 0.0343); HR, 0.59 (p = 0.0092), respectively. Risk of symptomatic progression was lessened with APA vs PBO for all age subgroups (Table). There was a similar increase in incidence of tx-emergent adverse events (TEAE) with age in both tx arms that remained higher with APA. Incidence of grade 3/4 TEAE (≥ 75 vs < 65 y): APA, 50% vs 37%; PBO, 37% vs 28%. Conclusions: Pts in all age subgroups with high-risk nmCRPC had significant improvement in MFS with APA + ongoing ADT. The safety profile of APA was similar across age subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01946204. [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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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