MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134768182 · doi:10.1200/jco.2021.39.6_suppl.6

177Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel: Updated results including progression-free survival (PFS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (TheraP ANZUP 1603).

2021· article· en· W3134768182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael S. Hofman, Louise Emmett, Shahneen Sandhu, Amir Iravani, Anthony M. Joshua, Jeffrey C. Goh, David A. Pattison, Thean Hsiang Tan, Ian Kirkwood, Siobhan Ng, Roslyn J. Francis, Craig Gedye, Natalie Rutherford, Alison Yan Zhang, Margaret McJannett, Martin R. Stockler, John Violet, Scott Williams, Andrew Martin, Ian D. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabazitaxelMedicineDocetaxelProstate cancerClinical endpointHazard ratioInternal medicineAdverse effectProgression-free survivalOncologyUrologyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialCancerOverall survivalAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6 Background: TheraP is a randomized phase 2 trial that showed LuPSMA significantly improved the primary endpoint of PSA≥50% reduction (66% vs. 37%) compared to cabazitaxel in men with docetaxel-treated mCRPC. We now report results on other clinical endpoints and PROs reached the pre-specified target of 170 PFS events. Methods: 200 men with mCRPC (median age 72 y, prior enza/abi 91%) and high PSMA-expression by 68Ga-PSMA-11 and no sites of FDG-positive/PSMA-negative disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to LuPSMA (6-8.5GBq q6wk up to 6 cycles; N = 99) or cabazitaxel (20mg/m2 q3wk up to 10 cycles; N = 101). Secondary endpoints include PSA/radiologic PFS (PCWG3), pain response (≥2 point reduction on McGill-Melzack Present Pain Intensity scale, objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST 1.1), adverse events (CTCAE), PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30) and overall survival (OS). Cut-off date for analysis of 20JUL20. Results: At a median follow-up of 18.4 months, PFS was significantly longer in those assigned Lu-PSMA rather than cabazitaxel (rates at 1y 19% [95%CI 12-27%] vs 3% [1-9%], hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.86; p = 0.003; 173 events). Similar benefit was seen for rPFS (HR 0.64, 95%CI 0.46-0.88; p = 0.007; 160 events) and PSA-PFS (HR 0.60 95%CI 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002; 172 events). ORR in 78 men with measurable disease was significantly greater in the LuPSMA arm (49% vs 24%, RR 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.1; p = 0.019). In 90 men with pain at baseline, pain responses occurred in 60% in the Lu-PSMA arm vs 43% for cabazitaxel (RR 1.42, 95%CI 0.84-4.48; p = 0.10). Patient-reported global health status was similar (LuPSMA 64 [95%CI 61-67] vs cabazitaxel 60 [57-64]) with significantly better outcomes reported for fatigue (34 [95%CI 31-37] vs 40 [36-43]), social functioning (79 [76-82] vs 73 [69-77]), insomnia (24 [20-27] vs 29 [25-33]) and diarrhoea (8.3 [5.6-11.0] vs 15.6 [12.6-18.6]) domains. No PRO domains were superior for cabazitaxel. G3-4 AEs were similar to previously reported (33% vs 53%). OS data remains immature (90 deaths). Conclusions: In men with docetaxel-treated mCRPC, LuPSMA is a promising alternative to cabazitaxel with significantly higher activity (PSA≥50%, PFS, ORR), fewer G3-4 AEs, similar effects on global health status, and improvements in some PRO domains. Clinical trial information: NCT03392428.

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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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