Differential treatment outcomes in <i>BRCA1/2</i>‐, <i>CDK12</i>‐, and <i>ATM</i>‐mutated metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA damage repair mutations (DDRm) are common in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The optimal standard therapy for this population is not well described. METHODS: A multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC and DDRm was conducted. Patient data, including systemic therapies and responses, were collected. The decline in prostate-specific antigen ≥ 50% from baseline (PSA50) and overall survival (OS) from the treatment start were compared by mutation and treatment type. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for OS was created that controlled for DDRm, first-line treatment received for mCRPC, and clinical factors. RESULTS: The most common DDRm observed among 149 men with mCRPC were BRCA1/2 (44%), CDK12 (32%), and ATM (15%). The majority received first-line abiraterone (40%) or enzalutamide (30%). The PSA50 rate with first-line abiraterone was lower for CDK12 (52%) than BRCA1/2 (89%; P = .02). After first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide, the median OS was longest with second-line carboplatin-chemotherapy (38 months) in comparison with abiraterone or enzalutamide (33 months), docetaxel (17 months), or cabazitaxel (11 months; P = .02). PSA50 responses to carboplatin-based chemotherapy were higher for BRCA1/2 (79%) than ATM (14%; P = .02) or CDK12 (38%; P = .08). In a multivariable analysis, neither the specific DDRm type nor the first-line treatment was associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Responses to standard therapies were generally superior in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and inferior in patients with ATM or CDK12 mutations. The DDRm type did not independently predict OS. After progression on first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide, carboplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with the longest OS. These findings may inform treatment discussions and clinical trial design and require prospective validation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".