MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic factors that affect survival outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with radium-223.

2020· article· en· W3008697319 on OpenAlexaff
Esmail Mutahar Al-Ezzi, Husam Alqaisi, Sarah Picardo, Marco Iafolla, Srikala S. Sridhar, Adrian G. Sacher, Nazanin Fallah‐Rad, Charles Catton, Padraig Warde, Robert J. Hamilton, Neil Fleshner, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Aaron R. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadium-223Proportional hazards modelInternal medicineBone metastasisOverall survivalCancerSurvival analysisUrologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

225 Background: Radium-223 (Ra-223) improved overall survival (OS) in men with mCRPC with predominantly bone metastases. We analyzed their survival outcomes to identify factors associated with prognosis for men treated with Ra-223. Methods: This was a retrospective study of men with mCRPC at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre treated with Ra-223. Demographics, disease characteristics, number of bone metastasis [ < 6, 6-20, > 20], laboratory results, number of Ra-223 doses, systemic treatment lines after radium-223, use of bone protecting agents (BPA) and survival outcomes were collected. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) analysis. Uni- (UVA) and multi-variate (MVA) analysis (Cox-regression) were used to evaluate patient and disease characteristics, number of Ra-223 doses and overall survival. Results: 114 men received Ra-223 between May 2015 and May 2018 with median age 75 years (range 53-93). Median radium doses was 5 (68 [59.6%] received > 4 doses, 46 [40.4%] received ≤4 doses). Median baseline ALP 113.5 U/L (31-1121), median baseline Hb 118 g/L (69-153), median baseline PSA 70.2 ug/L (0.15-5275), median LDH 242 UL (82-1426). 58% had 6-20 bone metastases and 28% had > 20 bone metastases. The median OS and PFS for men who received ≤4 doses vs > 4 doses was 4.56 vs 19.8 months (HR = 8.4; 95%CI: 4.861-14.62; p≤ 0.0001) and 2.9 vs 7.45 months (HR = 4.6; 95%CI: 2.837 to 7.537; p≤ 0.0001) respectively. The baseline median ALP was (154 vs 98; p = 0.03) for men who received ≤4 doses vs > 4 doses Ra-223. On UVA, ECOG 0-1 (HR = 0.33; p = 0.0003), baseline PSA < 70 ug/L (HR = 0.51; p = 0.0023), LDH < 250 U/L (HR 0.55; p = 0.0082), Hb > 120 g/L(HR 0.46; p = 0.0004), ALP < 150 U/l(HR 0.38; p ≤ 0.0001) and receipt of subsequent treatment after Ra-223 (HR = 0.33; p < 0.0001) were associated with improved OS. On MVA, receipt of subsequent treatment, administration > 4 cycles of Ra-223 and baseline ALP < 150 U/L were associated with improved OS. Conclusions: Men who receive > 4 cycles of Ra-223 have significantly better OS than those who receive ≤4 doses. Baseline ALP was independently associated with better OS and could be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from Ra-223.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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