MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Testosterone recovery for relugolix versus leuprolide in men with advanced prostate cancer: Results from the phase 3 HERO study.

2022· article· en· W4213229213 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Tutrone, Fred Saad, Daniel J. George, Bertrand Tombal, James L. Bailen, Michael S. Cookson, Daniel R. Saltzstein, Bruce Alan Brown, Sophia Lu, Neal D. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTestosterone (patch)Prostate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyUrologyPopulationAdverse effectAndrogenInternal medicineGynecologyCancerHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

104 Background: In the phase 3 HERO study, the oral GnRH receptor antagonist, relugolix, showed sustained testosterone suppression superior to that of leuprolide (96.7% vs 88.8%; difference: 7.9% [95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8; P < 0.001]). Herein, we provide an analysis of the testosterone recovery data in a subgroup of 184 men from the HERO study who were not indicated to continue androgen deprivation therapy. Methods: The phase 3 HERO study was designed to evaluate relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer. Overall, 934 men were randomized 2:1 to receive relugolix 120 mg orally once daily after a single oral loading dose of relugolix 360 mg on Day 1 or leuprolide injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks. Testosterone recovery was assessed in 184 patients who completed 48 weeks of treatment and who did not plan to start alternative androgen deprivation therapy within the following 12 weeks (or within 24 weeks following the last injection of leuprolide 3-month depot). During the 90-day recovery period, assessments included time to testosterone recovery (≥ 280 ng/dL, the lower limit of the normal range) using the Kaplan-Meier method, PSA concentrations in testosterone recovery phase, and adverse events during the recovery phase. All analyses were conducted in a modified intent to treat population. Results: Overall, 137 men in the relugolix group and 47 men in the leuprolide group were included in these analyses. Mean (standard deviation) testosterone levels for men entering the recovery assessment were 427±142 ng/dL and 404±127 ng/dL in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. The cumulative incidence rate of testosterone recovery to ≥280 ng/dL at 90 days after drug discontinuation was 53.9% in the relugolix group compared with 3.2% in the leuprolide group (nominal p = 0.0017). Overall, 74 of the 137 men in relugolix group recovered testosterone with a median time to recovery of 86.0 days (95% CI: 65.0, 92.0), versus 2 of the 47 men in leuprolide group with a median time to recovery of 112.0 days (95% CI: 112.0, not estimable). At the 90-day follow-up visit, the median PSA values were 0.39 ng/mL (range: 0 to 233.1) and 0.06 ng/mL (0 to 14.0) in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. Incidence of adverse events were generally similar in the treatment groups during the recovery phase, with 96% of men experiencing at least one adverse event and 15% of men experiencing a grade ≥3 adverse event in both treatment groups during the recovery phase. Conclusions: Relugolix, an oral nonpeptide GnRH receptor antagonist, had a faster and more complete recovery of testosterone to normal levels after treatment discontinuation versus leuprolide in a subgroup of men from the phase 3 HERO study. Clinical trial information: NCT03085095.

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 score0.016

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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