A Phase 3, Multicenter, Open Label, Randomized Study Of Abarelix Versus Leuprolide Plus Daily Antiandrogen In Men With Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the endocrinological and biochemical efficacy of abarelix depot, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, with that of a widely used combination of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen.A total of 255 patients were randomized to receive open label 100 mg. abarelix depot or 7.5 mg. leuprolide acetate intramuscularly injection on days 1, 29, 57, 85, 113 and 141 for 24 weeks. Patients in the abarelix group received an additional injection on day 15 and those in the leuprolide acetate group received 50 mg. bicalutamide daily. Patients could continue treatment with study drug for an additional 28 weeks. The efficacy end points were the comparative rates of avoidance of testosterone surge (greater than 10% increase) within 7 days of the first injection and the rapidity of achieving reduction of serum testosterone to castrate levels (50 ng./dl. or less) on day 8. Patients were monitored for adverse events and laboratory abnormalities.Abarelix was more effective in avoidance of testosterone surge (p <0.001) and the rapidity of reduction of testosterone to castrate levels on day 8 (p <0.001) than combination therapy. No significant difference was seen between the groups in the initial rate of decline of serum prostate specific antigen or the ability to achieve and maintain castrate levels of testosterone. No unusual or unexpected adverse events were reported.Abarelix as monotherapy achieves medical castration significantly more rapidly than combination therapy and avoids the testosterone surge characteristic of agonist therapy. Both treatments were equally effective in reducing serum prostate specific antigen, and achieving and maintaining castrate levels of testosterone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".