MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final overall survival (OS) from PROSPER: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study of enzalutamide (ENZA) in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

2020· article· en· W3029699663 on OpenAlexaff
Cora N. Sternberg, Karim Fizazi, Fred Saad, Neal D. Shore, Ugo De Giorgi, David F. Penson, Ubirajara Ferreira, Petro Ivashchenko, Eleni Efstathiou, Katarzyna Madziarska, Michael Kolinsky, Daniel Iracema Cubero, Bettina Noerby, Fabian Zohren, Xun Lin, Katharina Modelska, Jennifer Sugg, Joyce Steinberg, Maha Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideHazard ratioProstate cancerInternal medicinePlaceboDiscontinuationUrologyOncologyGynecologyCancerConfidence intervalAndrogen receptorAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5515 Background: PROSPER previously demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in metastasis-free survival (MFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29; 95% CI 0.24-0.35; P < .001) in men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) who received ENZA. When first reported, OS was immature with only 165 of 596 (28%) prespecified deaths. Here we report results from the final OS analysis. Methods: Men with nmCRPC, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 mo, and PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL at screening continued androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and were randomized 2:1 to ENZA 160 mg or PBO. OS treatment effect was assessed using a group sequential testing procedure with O’Brien-Fleming-type alpha spending function ( P ≤ .021 required for statistical significance). Medians were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; 95% CIs using a stratified Cox regression model. Results: As of Oct 15, 2019 (median follow-up ≈ 48 mo), there were 466 deaths (288 [30.9%] and 178 [38.0%] in the ENZA and PBO arms, respectively). ENZA significantly prolonged OS compared with PBO (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = .0011). Median OS was 67.0 mo (95% CI 64.0-not reached) in the ENZA arm and 56.3 mo (95% CI 54.4-63.0) in the PBO arm. Subsequent antineoplastic therapies were initiated after treatment discontinuation by 310 (33%) men in the ENZA arm vs 303 (65%) in the PBO arm. Median duration of treatment was 33.9 mo vs 14.2 mo with ENZA vs PBO, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 48% of men in the ENZA arm vs 27% in the PBO arm (16% vs 6% were drug related, respectively). AEs with event rates per 100 patient-yr that were ≥ 2 points higher with ENZA vs PBO were falls (9 vs 4), fatigue (14 vs 12), and hypertension (7 vs 5). Conclusions: ENZA treatment resulted in a statistically significant 27% reduced risk of death compared with PBO, demonstrating that initiation of ENZA + ADT before the onset of detectable metastasis improves OS in men with CRPC and rapidly rising PSA. This OS benefit ensues despite crossover from the PBO arm to ENZA and higher rates of subsequent antineoplastic therapies in men from the PBO arm. Safety was consistent with previous clinical trials. This final OS analysis from PROSPER provides prospective validation of MFS as a potential surrogate endpoint for OS in nmCRPC and supports the continued use of ENZA + ADT as a standard of care in men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising PSA. Clinical trial information: NCT02003924 .

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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