MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087416729 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2022485

Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

2020· article· en· W3087416729 on OpenAlexafffund
Maha Hussain, Joaquı́n Mateo, Karim Fizazi, Fred Saad, Neal D. Shore, Shahneen Sandhu, Kim N., Oliver Sartor, Neeraj Agarwal, David Olmos, Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin, Przemyslaw Twardowski, Guilhem Roubaud, Mustafa Özgüroğlu, Jinyu Kang, Joseph E. Burgents, Christopher Gresty, Claire Corcoran, Carrie A. Adelman, Johann S. de Bono

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchBC Cancer AgencyCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropePharmacyclicsMerck Sharp and DohmeEMD SeronoGenentechFoundation MedicineSierra OncologyBavarian NordicAstellas PharmaEisaiCelldex TherapeuticsDaiichi-SankyoClovis OncologyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAstraZenecaInvitaeIpsenVertex PharmaceuticalsBoston Scientific CorporationEndocyteNRG OncologyF. Hoffmann-La RocheExelixisSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineAmgenPfizerCelgeneEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsOlaparibProstate cancerOncologyMedicineInternal medicineCancer researchCancerBiologyPoly ADP ribose polymerase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: , and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations766
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207