MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer: Updated survival of the TAX 327 study

2007· article· en· W4244585987 on OpenAlexaff
Dominik Berthold, Gregory R. Pond, R deWit, Mario Eisenberger, I. F. Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelMitoxantronePrednisoneProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancerSurvival analysisChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5005 Background: The TAX-327 study compared 3 weekly docetaxel (D3), weekly docetaxel (D1) or mitoxantrone (M), each with prednisone (P) for 1006 patients (pts) with metastatic hormone resistant prostate cancer (mHRPC). The original analysis, undertaken in August 2003 when 557 deaths had occurred, showed significantly better survival and response rates for pain, PSA and quality of life for D3 when compared with M (Tannock et al, NEJM 2004;351:1502–12). Here we present the updated survival analysis. Methods: Investigators were asked to provide date of death or last follow up for all patients alive in August 2003. Results: By December 2007 data on 276 additional deaths were obtained (total 833 deaths, see Table ). The survival benefit of D3 as compared with M has persisted with extended follow up while D1 continues to show no significant survival advantage. More patients (17.9% and 16.7%) survived =3 years in the D3 and D1 arms compared to M (13.7%). Similar trends in survival between treatment arms were seen for pts above and below 65 years of age, for those with and without pain at baseline, and for those with baseline PSA above and below median value of 115ng/ml. Conclusions: The present analysis confirms previous findings that survival is significantly longer with D3 than with M. Survival update is ongoing. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207