MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exposure-adjusted safety analyses of the VISION phase 3 trial of <sup>177</sup>Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2022· article· en· W4212779820 on OpenAlexaff
Kim N., Nabil Adra, Rohan Garje, Jeff M. Michalski, Jules Lavalaye, Mette Moe Kempel, Marcia A. Brackman, Kevin Perraud, Geoffrey Holder, Andrew J. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectInternal medicineClinical endpointTaxaneOncologyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

85 Background: In the VISION trial, targeted radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617 significantly prolonged radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and overall survival when added to standard of care (SoC) in patients with advanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. There was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC vs SoC. However, treatment exposure was more than three times longer in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC arm and thus relative toxicity may have been overestimated. A post hoc analysis of the relationship between exposure and frequency of TEAEs was performed to facilitate comparison of rates between arms. Methods: In this international, open-label study, adult patients previously treated with ≥ 1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and 1–2 taxane regimens were randomized 2:1 to 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, ≤ 6 cycles) + SoC or SoC. Safety was a secondary endpoint. TEAEs (regardless of causality) were reported from start of randomized treatment for up to 30 days after last treatment administration (including SoC) or 1 day before subsequent anticancer treatment, whichever occurred first. Overall TEAE incidence was adjusted for treatment exposure by calculating incidence per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The analysis was performed for the first occurrence of TEAEs. Results: Exposure-adjusted incidence of any grade, grade ≥ 3 and selected TEAEs are listed in the table. There was similar exposure-adjusted incidence of gastrointestinal events and fatigue and higher exposure-adjusted incidence of musculoskeletal and renal events with SoC compared with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC suggesting an association with treatment exposure rather than 177Lu-PSMA-617. Dry mouth, dry eye and acute myelosuppression maintained a higher incidence, confirming relationship with 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment. Conclusions: The adjusted safety analysis, accounting for a longer safety observation due to longer rPFS in patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617, reveals a comparable incidence of TEAEs between arms. This confirms a favorable risk/benefit profile of 177Lu-PSMA-617 added to SoC in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664. [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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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