MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decreased fracture rate by mandating bone-protecting agents in the EORTC 1333/PEACE III trial comparing enzalutamide and Ra223 versus enzalutamide alone: An interim safety analysis.

2019· article· en· W2947262464 on OpenAlexaff
Bertrand Tombal, Yohann Loriot, Fred Saad, Tony Elliott, Alejo Rodríguez‐Vida, Franco Nolè, Béatrice Fournier, Laurence Collette, Silke Gillessen

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
KeywordsEnzalutamideMedicineDenosumabData monitoring committeeInterim analysisInternal medicineOncologyProstate cancerPopulationClinical trialCancerOsteoporosisAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5007 Background: Skeletal fractures, pathological or not, are a frequent and underestimated side-effect of systemic treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The ERA223 trial (NCT02043678) was recently unblinded following the report of a significant increase in the fracture rates when abiraterone is combined with Ra223. Hence, FDA and EMA advised against this combination. The question whether mandated use of bone protecting agents (BPA), zoledronic acid or denosumab, would have mitigated the fracture risk and whether this risk also exists in the enzalutamide/Ra223 combination is presently unknown. Methods: The phase III EORTC-1333-GUCG/PEACEIII (NCT02194842) trial compares enzalutamide vs. a combination of Ra223 and enzalutamide in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC patients (https://www.eortc.org/research_field/clinical-detail/1333/). After the unblinding of ERA223, the trial was amended (v4.0, April 19, 2018) to mandate that all patients must start a BPA. We report the fracture rate in the safety population of 146 treated patients as of 28/01/2019. Results: Overall, 54.2% of the patients in the enza/Ra223 arm and 51.4% of the enza arm did not receive BPA; 18.0% in the enza/Ra223 arm and 27.0% in the enza arm did not use BPA at randomization, but started during protocol treatment according to the v4.0 amendment. 27.8% and 21.6% respectively, received BPA as of randomization. In total, 45.8% of enza/Ra223 patients and 48.6% of enza only patients receive bone protection on treatment. The fracture rate is reported in the table. Conclusions: There is a 13% risk of fracture with enzalutamide in asymptomatic mCRPC, in line with previous reports. This risk is significantly increased to 33% when Ra223 is added to enzalutamide. Strikingly, the risk is almost abolished by mandatory continuous administration of BPA starting at least 6 weeks before the first injection of Ra223, thus emphasizing the importance of treating mCRPC patients with BPA. Clinical trial information: NCT02194842. [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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations61
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207