Real-world utilization of docetaxel among men with <i>de novo</i> metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A population-based study in men aged 66 or older.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
47 Background: Docetaxel was the first agent, when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), to demonstrate a survival benefit in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). It remains an important guideline recommendation approach in these men. However, real-world experience among patients with de novo metastatic disease is poorly understood. Using population-based data from Ontario Canada, we examined the real-world experience of using docetaxel in mCSPC. Methods: Men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer between 2014-2019 were captured. The Cancer Activity Level Reporting system tracks information regarding the use of cancer treatments, including details of systemic therapy. We identified patients who received docetaxel intensification to ADT following diagnosis of de novo mCSPC and analyzed the proportion of patients who completed 6 cycles of treatment, required a dose decrease, and who visited the emergency department (ED) or were hospitalized for febrile neutropenia. Results: Over the 5-year study period, 399 men received docetaxel treatment among 3,556 identified with de novo mCSPC. The median age was 72 (IQR 68-76) and mean Charlson comorbidity index was 0.15 (SD +/- 0.72). Of the 399 men, 230 (58%), 202 (51%) and 175 (44%) patients completed at least 4, 5 and 6 cycles of docetaxel, respectively. Dose reduction during docetaxel treatment was required in 173 (43%) patients. Filgrastim was prescribed among 29 (7.3%) patients. Hospitalization or ED visit for febrile neutropenia was observed in 63 (16 %) of patients who received docetaxel. Conclusions: Among men age 66 years and over who received docetaxel and ADT for mCSPC, less than half were able to complete all six prescribed cycles. In addition, over two fifth required dose reductions and 16% experienced febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization or ED visit. These data highlight the differences in expected outcomes between clinical trial populations (as reported in CHAARTED) and routine use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".