MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of olaparib vs physician’s choice of new hormonal agent (pcNHA) on burden of pain in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): PROfound.

2020· article· en· W3032366211 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Saad, Guilhem Roubaud, Giuseppe Procopio, Neal D. Shore, Karim Fizazi, Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin, Gabriel Marques dos Anjos, Gwénaëlle Gravis, Jae Young Joung, Nobuaki Matsubara, Daniel Castellano, Maha Hussain, Arnold Degboe, Christopher Gresty, Jinyu Kang, Joseph E. Burgents, Johann S. de Bono

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlaparibMedicineBrief Pain InventoryInternal medicineEnzalutamideOncologyPopulationCohortProstate cancerClinical endpointCancerRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyChronic pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5538 Background: In the Phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) olaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (primary endpoint) vs pcNHA (enzalutamide or abiraterone) in patients (pts) with mCRPC and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. In pts with alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2 and/or ATM (cohort A), time to pain progression was also significantly improved by olaparib vs pcNHA. We report additional pain analyses evaluated in the overall study population (cohort A and B). Methods: Pts were randomized to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid; n=256) or pcNHA (n=131). Pts completed the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI–SF) questionnaire (electronic administration) every 4 weeks up to 6 months after progression or treatment crossover. Responses were analysed to determine time to progression to worst pain, pain severity and first opiate use for cancer-related pain (Kaplan-Meier), and also pain interference in daily activity (mixed model for repeated measures). Results: 85% and 76% of olaparib pts were free of pain progression (worst pain item) compared with 75% and 51% in the pcNHA arm, respectively at 6 and 12 months. The proportion of pts without pain progression (overall pain severity) also favoured olaparib (Table). Median time to first opiate use was significantly prolonged in olaparib arm compared with pcNHA arm; 18 months for olaparib vs 9 months for pcNHA (Table). BPI-SF pain interference scores were also more favourable for olaparib than pcNHA; difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score −0.75 (95% CI: −1.14, −0.36) P=0.0002. Further pain burden results for cohort A will also be presented. Conclusions: Olaparib reduced the burden of pain and time to first opiate use in pts with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations vs pcNHA, demonstrating a clinical and symptomatic patient benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT02987543 . [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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207