MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk localized prostate cancer: Update of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521.

2020· article· en· W3008394635 on OpenAlexaff
Howard M. Sandler, Theodore Karrison, Oliver Sartor, Leonard G. Gomella, Mahul B. Amin, James A. Purdy, Jeff M. Michalski, Mark Garzotto, Nadeem Pervez, Alexander G. Balogh, George Rodrigues, Luís Souhami, M. Neil Reaume, Scott Williams, Raquibul Hannan, Christopher U. Jones, Eric M. Horwitz, Joseph P. Rodgers, Felix Y. Feng, Seth A. Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalMontreal General HospitalCancer Care Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyAndrogen deprivation therapyUrologyGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

333 Background: High-risk, localized prostate cancer has a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that adj docetaxel (D) and prednisone and long-term (24 mos) androgen suppression (AS) and radiation therapy (RT) would improve overall survival (OS) and tested this in NRG/RTOG 0521. Results with med follow-up of 5.7 yrs were reported (JCO 37:1159, 2019), showing a benefit of D (HR=0.69, 90% CI: 0.49-0.97, 1-sided p=0.034). Med follow-up is now 10.4 yrs and we report updated results for OS and metastasis (DM). Methods: NRG/RTOG 0521 opened 12/05 and closed 8/09 with targeted accrual of 600 and designed to detect a HR of 0.49, based on improvement in 4-yr OS from 86 to 93%. With 0.05 1-sided type I error and 90% power >78 deaths were required. Pts were stratified by predefined risk groups. Group 1: Gl 9-10, any T; Group 2: Gl 8, PSA<20, T≥T2; Group 3: Gl 8, PSA≥20, any T; Group 4: Gl 7, PSA≥20, any T. maxPSA ≤150. RT dose was 75.6 Gy. Chemo consisted of 6, 21-day cycles of D starting 28 days after RT. Results: Of 612 accrued, 563 were eligible/available for analysis. By risk group 1-4, there were 297, 116, 64, and 86 pts. Med PSA 15 ng/mL. 10-yr OS rates were 64% [95% CI: 58-70%] for AS+RT and 69% [95% CI: 63-75%] for AS+RT+CT (HR = 0.89, 90% CI: 0.70, 1.13, 1-sided p=0.22). However there was evidence of non-proportional hazards (Grambsch-Therneau test, p=0.016). Thus survival was alternatively evaluated with restricted mean survival time (RMST). The difference in RMST at 10 yrs was 0.42 yrs (90% CI: 0.07-0.77, 2-sided p=0.048). Cumulative incidence of DM at 10 yrs was 22% [95% CI: 17-27%] for AS+RT and 20% [95% CI: 15-25%] for AS+RT+CT (2-sided log-rank p=0.29). At 10 years most deaths occurred in risk group 1: 62 in AS+RT and 50 in AS+RT+CT (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.66-1.32, 2-sided log-rank p=0.16). There was no new related Grade 5 toxicity. Conclusions: OS findings, reported after follow-up of 5.7 yrs, demonstrated a small beneficial effect of adding D to AS and RT. With longer follow-up the benefit of D remains, but the HR varies over time and the OS curves have converged. Support: U10CA180868 (NRG Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG SDMC), U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI and Sanofi-Synthelabo Int. Clinical trial information: NCT00288080.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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