MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224880568 · doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2022.04.009

Real-World Cabazitaxel Use and Outcomes in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Impact of Response to First ARPI

2022· review· en· W4224880568 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Watson, Richard Gagnon, Eugene Batuyong, Nimira Alimohamed, Richard M. Lee‐Ying

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genitourinary Cancer · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersSanofi GenzymeSanofi
KeywordsCabazitaxelMedicineProstate cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancerAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For post-docetaxel treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), cabazitaxel has demonstrated superior third line PFS and OS compared to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) in patients who progress within 12 months on first ARPI. The impact of first ARPI response, in particular responses beyond 12 months, on cabazitaxel outcomes in real-world populations is uncertain, as are other factors impacting cabazitaxel use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients in Alberta, Canada who received docetaxel from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017 were included. We reviewed mCRPC therapies, correlating cabazitaxel use with patient characteristics and TROPIC trial inclusion/exclusion criteria. OS and PFS were evaluated in patients who received cabazitaxel, stratified by time to progression on first ARPI ≤ 12 months (poor ARPI responders, PAR) or >12 months (strong ARPI responders, SAR), using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: PAR patients had inferior OS compared to SAR patients (12.3 vs. 24.8 months, P < .001). OS was longer in PAR patients receiving cabazitaxel compared to those not treated with cabazitaxel (16.9 vs. 10.3 months, P = .015), but this benefit was not seen in the SAR group (17.1 vs. 32 months, P = .084). Cabazitaxel use was associated with reduced PFS first line post-docetaxel in SAR (3.5 vs. 14.7 months, P < .001) but not PAR patients. Of 592 patients, 170 (29%) received cabazitaxel post-docetaxel, compared to 280 (47%) and 250 (42%) for abiraterone and enzalutamide. 238 patients (40%) did not have a discussion of cabazitaxel documented. Cabazitaxel use was increased in patients who fit TROPIC trial criteria (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world mCRPC cohort, cabazitaxel use was associated with longer OS among PAR patients, but crucially not among strong ARPI responders. Cabazitaxel was used less frequently and later than ARPIs post-docetaxel. These data help support first ARPI progression time as a consideration in treatment sequencing.

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)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Genitourinary CancerSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207