MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety of darolutamide (DARO) for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) from extended follow-up in the phase III ARAMIS trial.

2021· article· en· W3134910506 on OpenAlexaff
Karim Fizazi, Teuvo L.J. Tammela, Felipe Melo Cruz, Luke T. Nordquist, Diana Sofia Aleman Polanco, Urban Emmenegger, Glauco Costa Silveira, Raoul S. Concepcion, Adriano Augusto Peclat de Paula, Carlos Augusto de Mendonça Beato, Neil Fleshner, Martin Eduardo Richardet, Iris Kuss, Marie‐Aude Le Berre, Gustavo Borghesi, Toni Sarapohja, Neal D. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationAdverse effectPlaceboIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineRash

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

239 Background: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARI) approved for treating nmCRPC. In ARAMIS, DARO significantly reduced the risk of death by 31% (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.88; p = 0.003) and prolonged median metastasis-free survival vs placebo (PBO; 40.4 months vs 18.4 months; HR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.34-0.50; p < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) of interest commonly associated with ARI therapy, such as fatigue, falls, fractures, rash, mental impairment, and hypertension, as well as interactions between ARIs and concomitantly administered drugs, can impact patient daily life. In the final analysis of the double-blind (DB) period of the ARAMIS trial, DARO had a favorable safety profile, showing ≤2% difference vs PBO for most AEs of interest. Fatigue was the only AE with > 10% incidence with DARO. The incidence of permanent discontinuation due to AEs was also similar between DARO and PBO (8.9% vs 8.7%). Here we present safety data for prolonged treatment with DARO from the final analysis of the DB + open-label (OL) period of ARAMIS. Methods: Patients (pts) with nmCRPC (N = 1509) were randomized 2:1 to DARO or matched PBO while continuing androgen deprivation therapy. The data cut-off for the primary analysis of the DB period was September 3, 2018. Study unblinding occurred on November 30, 2018, after which pts in the DARO arm still receiving study treatment continued with OL DARO. The data cut-off for final analysis of the DB+OL period was November 15, 2019. Results: At the final analysis, the median treatment duration for pts randomized to DARO was 18.5 months for the DB period and 25.8 months for the DB+OL period. At the final cut-off date, 48.8% of patients in the DARO DB+OL group were still receiving DARO treatment. The increase in the incidence of any-grade AEs (85.7% vs 89.8%) and serious AEs (26.1% vs 32.1%) between the DB and DB+OL period was small. Between the DB and DB+OL periods, only minor numerical changes for ARI-associated AEs were observed. When the incidences were corrected for exposure, there were minimal differences between the DB and DB+OL period, e.g., the fracture rate was 3.4 vs 4.0 per 100 patient-years for the DB vs DB+OL periods, respectively. Fatigue was the only ARI-associated AE of interest that exhibited > 10% incidence in the DARO arm during the DB+OL period. The incidence of permanent discontinuation of DARO due to AEs increased slightly from 8.9% during the DB period to 10.5% during the DB+OL period; the incidence of discontinuation of PBO due to AEs during the DB period was 8.7%. Conclusions: With longer treatment exposure, DARO remained well-tolerated. In the DB+OL period, no new safety signals were observed. The expected increases in incidence of AEs between the DB and DB+OL periods largely disappeared when adjusted for the longer exposure, confirming the favorable safety profile of DARO with prolonged treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT02200614.

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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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