MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall survival (OS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) by depth of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline in the phase III PROSPER trial of men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with enzalutamide (ENZA).

2021· article· en· W3134327766 on OpenAlexaff
Maha Hussain, Cora N. Sternberg, Eleni Efstathiou, Karim Fizazi, Qi Shen, Xun Lin, Jennifer Sugg, Joyce Steinberg, Bettina Noerby, Ugo De Giorgi, Neal D. Shore, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboHazard ratioProstate cancerUrologyPost-hoc analysisInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProstate-specific antigenOncologyGynecologyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

94 Background: The PROSPER trial demonstrated prolonged MFS and OS for men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising PSA treated with ENZA vs placebo, both in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The final survival analysis of PROSPER (Sternberg et al. NEJM 2020) recently reported a median OS of 67.0 months (95% CI, 64.0 to not reached) with ENZA and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = .001). Post hoc analyses of PROSPER evaluating PSA dynamics have demonstrated longer MFS with greater PSA decline (Hussain et al. ESMO Sept 19-21, 2020. Poster 685P) and increased risk of metastases in patients with even modest PSA progression vs those without (Saad et al. Eur Urol 2020). Here we further explored the relationship between PSA dynamics and outcomes in PROSPER using uniquely defined PSA subgroups of decline. Methods: Eligible men in PROSPER had nmCRPC, a PSA level ≥ 2 ng/mL at baseline, and a PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months. Men continued ADT, were randomized 2:1 to ENZA 160 mg once daily vs placebo, and had PSA evaluation at week 17 and every 16 weeks thereafter. This post hoc analysis evaluated OS and MFS for 4 mutually exclusive subgroups defined by PSA nadir using men with PSA reduction < 50% as the reference group. The HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards analysis model. Results: 1401 men were enrolled in PROSPER; 933 were treated with ENZA and PSA data were available for 905. Measured at nadir, 38% of these men achieved PSA reduction ≥ 90% (actual nadir < 0.2 ng/mL), and another 27% achieved PSA reduction ≥ 90% (actual nadir ≥ 0.2 ng/mL). Among men in the placebo arm of PROSPER only 3/457 reported PSA reduction ≥ 90%. Median OS and MFS increased with increasing depth of PSA decline (Table). Conclusions: In men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising PSA treated with ADT plus ENZA, there was a close relationship between the degree of PSA decline and survival outcomes. Defining PSA by both percent decline and actual decline below 0.2 ng/mL revealed a previously under-appreciated relationship between these PSA metrics and highlights the importance of PSA nadir as an intermediate biomarker in nmCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02003924. [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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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