MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Overall survival (OS) results of a phase III randomized trial of standard-of-care therapy with or without enzalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an ANZUP-led international cooperative group trial.

2019· article· en· W2948772049 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Sweeney, Andrew Martin, Robert Zielinski, Alastair Thomson, Thean Hsiang Tan, Shahneen Sandhu, M. Neil Reaume, David Pook, Francis Parnis, Scott North, Ray McDermott, John McCaffrey, Gavin Marx, Nicola Jane Lawrence, Lisa G. Horvath, Mark Frydenberg, Simon Chowdhury, Kim N., Martin R. Stockler, Ian D. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnzalutamideMedicineDocetaxelOncologyInternal medicineClinical endpointProstate cancerHazard ratioCancerAndrogen receptorRandomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA2 Background: Testosterone suppression (TS) is the backbone of treatment for mHSPC. OS is improved by the addition of early docetaxel (DOC) or abiraterone to TS. ENZAMET assessed the effects of enzalutamide (ENZA), a potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, versus a nonsteroidal anti-androgen (NSAA: bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide) in addition to SOC (TS with or without DOC) in mHSPC. Methods: Men with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive TS plus either ENZA or NSAA. Randomization was stratified by: volume of disease (high vs low, according to CHAARTED); planned early DOC; planned anti-resorptive therapy, comorbidity score (ACE-27), and study site. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Accrual of 1100 men provided 80% power to detect a 25% reduction in the hazard of death (HR 0.75) with up to 4 interim analyses (IA), the first planned to occur after 235 deaths (50% of total information with a critical p-value threshold <0.0031 by the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending approach with O’Brien-Fleming type shape). Subgroup analyses to assess possible modulation of the treatment effect were specified a priori and included planned early docetaxel (yes vs no) and volume of disease (high vs low). Results: We randomly assigned 1125 patients from 31MAR14 to 24MAR17. The treatment groups were well balanced for all important baseline factors. Criteria for early reporting were met at the first IA (28FEB2019) after a median follow-up of 33 months. Overall survival was prolonged by ENZA (see below). At 3 years, 36% NSAA vs 64% ENZA were still on their assigned study treatment. Serious adverse events (regardless of attribution) within 30 days of study treatment occurred in 42% ENZA vs 34% NSAA, commensurate with the different durations of study treatment. Conclusions: ENZA significantly improved OS when added to SOC in mHSPC. The benefits appeared lower in those planned to receive early DOC. Results of analyses with updated follow-up triggered by this IA will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT02446405. [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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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