MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparison of abiraterone acetate (Abi) versus ketoconazole (Keto) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) refractory to docetaxel (D).

2013· article· en· W4231021439 on OpenAlexaff
Avivit Peer, Maya Ish‐Shalom, Natalie Maimon, Maya Gottfried, Ben Boursi, Raya Leibowitz‐Amit, Raanan Berger, Avivit Neumann, Svetlana Kovel, Avishay Sella, Роберто Пили, Hans J. Hammers, Victoria J. Sinibaldi, Michael A. Carducci, Mario A. Eisenberger, Daniel Keizman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAbiraterone acetateInternal medicineDocetaxelOncologyKetoconazoleRefractory (planetary science)Progression-free survivalUrologyProportional hazards modelCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

146 Background: Abi is a standard treatment (tx) in pts with mCRPC refractory to deocetaxel. It is a potent and selective CYP 17 inhibitor that blocks the synthesis of androgens in the testis, adrenal glands, and prostate. However, in many countries where abi has not been approved yet, keto is used as an alternative CYP 17 inhibitor. Although preclinical data suggests that keto is a less specific and potent inhibitor of CYP 17, there are limited clinical data comparing both agents. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of abi vs keto in pts with mCRPC refractory to D. Methods: Records from 156 mCRPC pts treated with keto 200 - 400 mg 3x day, in 4 centers across the US and Israel, were reviewed retrospectively. 26 pts treated post D were individually matched by clinicopathologic factors to pts treated with abi (selected from a multicenter Israeli database, n=120). We compared the PSA response (decrease ≥50% from baseline), biochemical and radiological progression free survival, and overall survival between the groups. Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: The groups were matched by Gleason score, pre-tx disease extent (limited-axial skeleton and/or nodal vs extensive- appendicular skeleton and/or visceral), ECOG PS, pre-tx risk category (favorable, intermediate, poor; Keizman, Oncologist 2012). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding median age (71 abi vs 69 keto), time from primary tx to disease relapse, time to progression on prior GnRH-a and antiandrogen, PSA response and time to progression on prior D, pre-tx pain score/alkaline phosphatase/hemoglobin/ neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio/PSADT/PSA. In the groups of abi vs keto, PSA response was 46% vs 19% (OR 4.4, p=0.043), median biochemical PFS 7 vs 2 months (HR 0.65, p=0.02), median radiological PFS 6 vs 2.5 months (HR 0.63, p=0.016), median overall survival 17 vs 12 months (HR 0.53, p=0.79), and tx interruption d/t adverse events 12% vs 23% (0R 0.6, p=0.023). Conclusions: In mCRPC refractory to D, the outcome of pts treated with abiraterone was superior to ketoconazole.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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