MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Geographic variation in systemic therapy in men age 66 years and older with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A population-based study in a single payer health-system.

2021· article· en· W3134531349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Shawn Malone, Ilias Cagiannos, Scott C. Morgan, Robert J. Hamilton, Naveen S. Basappa, Cristiano Ferrario, Geoffrey Gotto, Ricardo Ferreira Fernandes, Tamim Niazi, Krista Noonan, Fred Saad, Sebastién J. Hotte, Huong Hew, K. Chan, Laura Park‐Wyllie, Bobby Shayegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalJewish General Hospital
FundersJanssen Biotech
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyAbiraterone acetateDocetaxelInternal medicineEnzalutamidePopulationOncologyCancerPrednisoneSystemic therapyGynecologyAndrogen receptorBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

50 Background: Significant developments in the standard of care for patients with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) have been reported over the past decade. Treatment intensification with systemic therapies in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone is guideline recommended for most patients. We studied the geographic variation in the use of systemic therapy for de novo mCSPC in Ontario, Canada, a single-payer health system. Methods: We performed a population-based study of men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with de novo mCSPC between 2014-2019. We linked population-based healthcare databases, as administered at the level of Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) in Ontario, to examine treatment patterns following diagnosis of de novo mCSPC. We categorized initial mCSPC treatments as those begun within 60 days preceding and 6 months following diagnosis and examined the proportion of patients receiving LHRH alone, first generation anti-androgen (AA) alone, combined androgen blockade (CAB; LHRH + 1st gen AA), ADT + abiraterone acetate + prednisone (AAP), and, ADT + docetaxel (D). In aggregate, we considered LHRH alone, AA alone and CAB as “standard ADT”, and ADT + AAP and ADT + D as “ADT-plus”. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between receiving systemic treatment intensification (“ADT-plus”) or no prostate cancer pharmacotherapy relative to ADT across geographic regions, while adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. Results: We identified 3,556 men over 66 with de novo mCSPC. Overall, 2794 (78.6%) received standard ADT, 311 (8.7%) did not receive prostate cancer-directed pharmacotherapy, and 451 patients (12.7%) of patients received “ADT-plus”. Utilization of AAP increased from 0.5% to 3% following the LATITUDE data release in 2017, while D decreased from 12% to 10%. There was significant variation in treatment strategies between geographic regions in use of “ADT-plus” ranging from 7 to 20% (p < 0.0001), a difference which persisted after accounting for patient demographics, comorbidity, rurality, and disease characteristics (p = 0.036). Conclusions: Despite proven survival benefits in randomized controlled trials, intensified treatment with docetaxel or abiraterone in addition to ADT was infrequently utilized in this population-based study of men age 66 years and over with mCSPC.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→