MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Complex biologic heterogeneity of <i>de novo</i> hormone naïve metastatic prostate cancer (HNPCa): Comparison of early progressors and prolonged responders to initial systemic treatment.

2019· article· en· W2947213749 on OpenAlexaff
Brian F. Chapin, Xuemei Wang, Miao Zhang, Paul G. Corn, Amado J. Zurita, Mohamed A Elsheshtawi, John W. Davis, Curtis A. Pettaway, Mehrad Adibi, Martin Gleave, Matthew R. Cooperberg, Marc C. Smaldone, Sean E. McGuire, Shi‐Ming Tu, Jennifer Wang, Sumit K. Subudhi, Eleni Efstathiou, Christopher J. Logothetis, Patricia Troncoso, Ana M. Aparicio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortRandomized controlled trialProstate cancerPopulationOncologyProgression-free survivalExact testCancerOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5055 Background: Given the absence of biologically based biomarkers current therapy allocation strategies for men with mHNPCa are based on anatomic distribution and volume of metastases. We sought to determine the strength of the association between clinical predictors (including met volume) and outcomes in men with mHNPCa at extremes of response to initial systemic therapy (ST). Methods: Data from a population screened for a phase II trial of Best ST +/- local therapy in mHNPCa was analyzed (NCT01751438). Pts had to have sustained responses to ST (≥6 mos) in order to be randomized. Early Progressors (EP, castration resistant progression <6 mos from start of ST per PCWG2) were not randomized. Prolonged Responders (PR) were defined as those with progression free survivals (PFS) > median for the 109 randomized pts. Baseline demographics were compared between groups (Fisher’s exact test for categorical and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables) and Kaplan Meier estimates of OS determined. Immunohistochemistry and genomic sequencing of untreated tumor biopsies are ongoing. Results: Of 208 screened pts, 27 (13%) were identified as EPs, with a median PFS of 5.9 mos (95%CI: 5.3-6.5). The median PFS for the randomized cohort was 16.8 mos (95%CI: 12.7-37.6). 55 (50%) pts were identified as PRs, with median PFS not reached (NR) at a median follow up of 31 mos (range: 7.5-75). Patients’ demographics are below (Table), grouped by EP and PR cohorts. Median OS was 24.8 mos vs NR in the Eps compared to PRs (p<0.001). Conclusions: The EP group was enriched for high risk features and had a worse outcome. However, 33% of men in the EP group had low volume disease and 22% in the PR group had high volume disease. This suggests that clinical volume is an inadequate predictor of biologic response and highlights the need for biologic sub-typing of de novo mHNPCa. [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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.274 · 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→