MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Quality of life (QOL) for the treatment sequence of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) followed by enzalutamide (ENZ) versus the opposite sequence for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Results from a phase II randomized clinical trial.

2020· article· en· W3032001277 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Khalaf, Katherine Sunderland, Bernhard J. Eigl, Daygen L. Finch, Conrad D. Oja, Joanna Vergidis, Muhammad Zulfiqar, Christian Kollmannsberger, Martin Gleave, Kim N.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaKelowna General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideAbiraterone acetateProstate cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineRandomized controlled trialPrednisoneSequence (biology)AbirateroneUrologyGastroenterologySurgeryOncologyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5578 Background: A randomized cross-over phase II trial (Lancet Oncol 20(12):1730, 2019) showed the sequence of AAP followed by ENZ is associated with a better time to PSA progression compared with the opposite sequence and superior 2nd line activity of ENZ. It is unknown whether one treatment sequence is associated with better QOL than the other. Methods: 202 Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either AAP followed by ENZ at PSA progression (arm A) or the opposite sequence of ENZ followed by AAP (arm B). FACT-P questionnaires were completed at baseline, cross-over and every 4 weeks on treatment. Time to QOL deterioration (TTQOLD) for the treatment sequence was determined from start of 1st line treatment to first questionnaire with a clinically meaningful decrease from baseline and compared between arms using the log-rank test. TTQOLD was also determined for 1st line and 2nd line separately. The proportion of patients with QOL deterioration for total FACT-P score and FACT-P subscores from baseline to week 12 of 1st and 2nd line treatment was compared between arms using X2 test. Results: Median follow-up for 1st and 2nd line and whole sequence were 9.3, 6.6 and 22.0 months (mos) respectively and questionnaire completion rate was 81%. TTQOLD for total FACT-P score for the whole sequence for arm A vs B was 10.5 mo (95% CI 5.0-15.5) vs 10.8 mo (5.5-13.1), p = 0.74. For 1st-line AAP vs ENZ, median TTQOLD was 15.5 mo (5.5-21.2) vs 11.0 (5.5-13.3) respectively (p = 0.23). For 2nd line ENZ vs ABI, median TTQOLD was 3.7 mo (2.0-5.4) vs 5.8 (2.8-12.1), p = 0.13. There was a higher rate of deterioration in physical well-being (PWB) for 1st line ENZ (arm B) and 2nd line ENZ (arm A) (Table). Conclusions: There was no difference in TTQOLD between the two treatment sequences of AAP and ENZ. Although treatment with second line ENZ has been associated with greater anti-cancer effects, ENZ was associated worse PWB QOL scores. Clinical trial information: NCT02125357 . [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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.523
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.059 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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