MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

PSA decline and objective response rates in White (W), Black (B), and Asian men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2019· article· en· W2947121907 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Halabi, Sandipan Dutta, Kim N., Catherine M. Tangen, Mengdi Xuan, Daniel P. Petrylak, John C. Araujo, Karim Fizazi, David I. Quinn, Michael J. Morris, Celestia S. Higano, I. Tannock, Eric J. Small, William Kevin Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRegimenInternal medicineAbiraterone acetatePrednisoneLogistic regressionOdds ratioOncologyDocetaxelCancerGynecologyAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5021 Background: We have shown previously in multivariable analysis that AA men had 19% lower risk of death than C men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with a docetaxel (D) and prednisone (P) based regimen. The primary goal of this analysis was to compare ≥50%PSA decline and objective response rate (ORR) in C men, AA men, and Asian men with mCRPC treated with a DP based regimen. Methods: Individual patient data from 8,151 mCRPC men randomized on eight phase III trials to a D containing regimen were combined. Race used in the analysis was based on self-report. The endpoints were ≥50% PSA decline from baseline defined by the PSA working group 2 and ORR (defined as complete or partial response). The logistic regression model was employed to assess the prognostic importance of race in predicting ≥50% PSA decline and ORR adjusting for treatment arm, performance status, and site of metastases. Results: Of 8,151, 7,687 (94%) patients had evaluable PSA data. Of 7,687 men, 6,535 (85%) were W, 445 (6%) were B, 395 (5%) were Asian and 312 (4%) had race unspecified. Men with race unspecified were excluded from the analysis, leaving 7,375 men. Percentage of patients who experienced PSA decline from baseline were: 64%, 58% and 62% in W, B and Asian men, respectively. In multivariable analysis adjusting for risk factors, the pooled odds ratios for PSA decline for AA vs. W were 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1, p = 0.16) and 1.0 (95% CI = 0.8-1.2, p = 0.92) for Asian vs. W. In 2,760 patients with measurable disease, the percentage of patients who had ORR were: 39%, 31% and 34% in W, B and Asian men, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the pooled odds ratios for ORR were 1.0 (95% CI = 0.7-1.4) for B vs. W and 0.9 (95% CI = 0.6-1.4) for Asian vs. W. Conclusions: There were no differences in PSA decline and ORR outcomes in W, B, or Asian men with mCRPC enrolled on these phase III clinical trials with DP. Clinical trial information: NCT00110214.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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