MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of denosumab on bone mineral density (BMD) in women with breast cancer (BC) and men with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing hormone ablation therapy

2009· article· en· W2966718823 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell R. Smith, Georgiana K. Ellis, Fred Saad, Teuvo L.J. Tammela, Henry G. Bone, Blair Egerdie, Chunlei Ke, Roger Dansey, Carsten Goessl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabBone mineralClinical endpointUrologyInternal medicineAndrogen deprivation therapyOsteoporosisBreast cancerProstate cancerBone resorptionOncologyBone remodelingRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9520 Background: Hormone ablation therapies, including adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), improve recurrence-free survival in patients (pts) with BC and PC, respectively. However, these treatments increase bone resorption, leading to bone loss and fractures. RANKL is a key mediator of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. In this 24 month (mo) comparison, we investigated the effects of denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, on preserving BMD across both populations. Methods: Two trials were conducted: a 24-mo BC study and a 36-mo PC study. Postmenopausal women with low BMD receiving AI therapy for nonmetastatic BC and men receiving ADT for nonmetastatic PC (with low BMD or history of osteoporotic fracture if < 70 yrs) were randomized to receive placebo or denosumab 60mg subcutaneously every 6 mos. All pts in both studies were prescribed calcium and vitamin D supplements. The primary endpoint was % change from baseline in lumbar spine (LS) BMD at 12 mos for the BC study and at 24 mos for the PC study. Herein, we present changes in BMD at 24 mos at LS, total hip (TH), and 1/3 radius from both studies. Power calculations were based on enrollment of at least 208 patients in the BC study (for primary endpoint only) and 1226 in the PC study (for primary and key secondary endpoints). The actual numbers randomized were 252 and 1468, respectively. Results: Denosumab increased BMD of the LS, TH, and 1/3 radius compared with placebo at 24 mos in both pt populations ( Table ). In both studies, differences between denosumab and placebo at each skeletal site were consistent, and the effects of denosumab were statistically significantly different from placebo as early as 1 month at the LS in both studies. The overall safety profile was similar to placebo in each study. Conclusions: Denosumab consistently increased BMD at all 3 skeletal sites compared with placebo in both women with BC undergoing AI therapy and in men with PC undergoing ADT. [Table: see text] [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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→