MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

HERO phase III trial: Results comparing relugolix, an oral GnRH receptor antagonist, versus leuprolide acetate for advanced prostate cancer.

2020· article· en· W3028809236 on OpenAlexaff
Neal D. Shore, Daniel J. George, Fred Saad, Michael S. Cookson, Daniel R. Saltzstein, Ronald Tutrone, Hideyuki Akaza, Alberto Bossi, David van Veenhuyzen, Bryan Selby, Xiaolin Fan, Vicky Kang, Jacqueline M. Walling, Bertrand Tombal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCastrationUrologyTestosterone (patch)LeuprorelinClinical endpointInternal medicineProstateHormone antagonistRandomized controlled trialEndocrinologyAntagonistCancerGynecologyGonadotropin-releasing hormoneHormoneLuteinizing hormoneReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5602 Background: LHRH agonists are the mainstay for medical castration in advanced prostate cancer; however, they cause an initial testosterone (T) surge with a delayed onset of castration and require depot injection. Relugolix is the first oral GnRH receptor antagonist, which was previously shown to rapidly suppress T levels. The HERO trial compared the safety and efficacy of relugolix with leuprolide acetate in advanced prostate cancer patients. Methods: HERO is a 48-week, global, pivotal phase III trial that randomized 934 patients with androgen-sensitive advanced prostate cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive relugolix 120 mg orally QD after a single l or leuprolide acetate 3-month depot injection. The primary endpoint was to achieve and maintain serum T suppression to castrate levels (< 50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included castration rates at Day 4, profound castration (< 20 ng/dL) rates at Days 4 and 15, PSA response rate at Day 15 and FSH levels at Week 25. Testosterone recovery was evaluated in a subset of 184 patients. Results: A total of 96.7% (95% CI: 94.9%, 97.9%) of men on relugolix achieved and maintained castration through 48 weeks compared to 88.8% on leuprolide. The difference of 7.9% (95% CI: 4.1%, 11.8%) demonstrated non-inferiority (margin -10%) and superiority (P < 0.0001) of relugolix to leuprolide. All key secondary efficacy endpoints tested demonstrated superiority over leuprolide (P < 0.0001) (Table). In the testosterone recovery subset, median T levels were 270.76 ng/dL in the relugolix compared to 12.26 ng/dL in the leuprolide group 90 days after discontinuation of therapy. In a prespecified analysis, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was lower in the relugolix group than in the leuprolide group (2.9% vs. 6.2%, respectively); otherwise the safety and tolerability profiles were generally similar. Conclusion: Relugolix achieved castration as early as Day 4 and demonstrated superiority over leuprolide in sustained T suppression through 48 weeks, faster T recovery after discontinuation and a 50% reduction in MACE. Relugolix has the potential to become a new standard for T suppression for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03085095 . [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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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