MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of two poor prognosis subgroups in ACIS evaluating apalutamide + abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (APA + AAP) versus placebo (PBO) + AAP in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2021· article· en· W3170806165 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Saad, Eleni Efstathiou, Gerhardt Attard, Thomas W. Flaig, Fábio Franke, Oscar Goodman, Stéphane Oudard, Thomas Steuber, Hiroyoshi Suzuki, Christopher Pieczonka, Francis Parnis, Daphne Wu, Kesav Yeruva, Peter De Porre, Sabine Brookman‐May, Susan Li, Jinhui Li, Suneel Mundle, Sharon McCarthy, Dana E. Rathkopf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersJanssen Research and Development
KeywordsMedicineAbiraterone acetateProstate cancerInternal medicineClinical endpointPlaceboPrednisoneProgression-free survivalAdverse effectPopulationRandomizationEnzalutamideRandomized controlled trialUrologyGastroenterologyOncologySurgeryCancerChemotherapyAndrogen deprivation therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5037 Background: In the double-blind PBO-controlled ACIS study, investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly improved with APA + AAP vs PBO + AAP in chemo-naive mCRPC, with no significant new safety signals (Rathkopf ASCO GU 2021). Among prespecified subgroups, efficacy and safety were explored in two difficult to treat subgroups: pts with visceral disease (VD; liver, lung, and/or adrenal gland metastasis) or age ≥ 75 y. Methods: Pts with mCRPC with ongoing ADT and no prior life-prolonging treatment were randomized 1:1 to APA (240 mg QD) + AA (1000 mg QD) + P (5 mg BID) or PBO + AAP. Stratified: presence or absence of VD, ECOG PS 0 or 1, geographic region. Primary end point: rPFS (randomization to radiographic progression or death); secondary end points: overall survival (OS), time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, time to chronic opioid use, time to pain progression, safety. Results: 982 pts enrolled. 14.6% had VD and 35.9% were ≥ 75 y. Median rPFS, OS, and time to pain progression favored APA + AAP vs AAP (HR < 1) in both subgroups (Table). For pts ≥ 75 y, rPFS and OS were ≥ 7 mo longer with APA + AAP. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar (all > 94%) in pts with VD, ≥ 75 y, and overall safety population; hypertension was more frequent with APA + AAP vs AAP mainly in pts ≥ 75 y (31.7% vs 17.6%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs (APA + AAP vs AAP): VD, 60.8%, n = 74 vs 48.5%, n = 68; ≥ 75 y, 71.5%, n = 186 vs 68.5%, n = 165; overall, 63.3%, n = 490 vs 56.2%, n = 489. TEAEs leading to discontinuation: VD, 17.6% vs 5.9%; ≥ 75 y, 26.3% vs 20.6%; overall, 16.9% vs 12.5%. TEAEs leading to death: VD, 6.8% vs 5.9%; ≥ 75 y, 5.4% vs 13.9%; overall, 3.5% vs 7.6%. Conclusions: In this analysis of two difficult to treat subgroups, addition of APA to AAP favored rPFS and OS. Safety, while generally consistent with the overall population, showed higher hypertension rate in ≥ 75 y and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in VD. Clinical trial information: NCT02257736. [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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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