MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intermittent (IAD) versus continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) in hormone sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (HSM1PC) patients (pts): Results of S9346 (INT-0162), an international phase III trial.

2012· article· en· W4245577852 on OpenAlexaff
Maha Hussain, Catherine M. Tangen, Celestia S. Higano, E. David Crawford, Glenn Liu, George Wilding, Stephen M. Prescott, A. Akdaş, Eric J. Small, Nancy A. Dawson, Bryan Donnelly, Peter Venner, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Paul F. Schellhammer, David I. Quinn, Derek Raghavan, Nicholas J. Vogelzang, Ian M. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsProstate Cancer Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerInternal medicineBicalutamideGoserelinUrologyOncologyAndrogen deprivation therapyAntiandrogenHazard ratioCastrationCancerAndrogen receptorHormoneConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4 Background: Castration resistance occurs in the vast majority of HSM1PC pts treated with AD, with a median survival of 2.5 years (y). It is in part an adaptive process with activation of genes resulting in the production of autocrine/paracrine growth factors that contribute to maintaining the viability of PC cells. Replacing androgens before castration resistance is hypothesized to maintain PC androgen-dependence. Preclinically IAD prolonged time to castration resistance and early clinical data indicated feasibility and potential for better quality of life. Methods: HSM1PC pts with performance status (PS) 0-2, PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml were treated with 7 months (m) of goserelin + bicalutamide. Pts achieving PSA ≤4 ng/ml on m 6 and 7 were stratified by prior neoadjuvant AD/finasteride, PS and disease extent (minimal, extensive) and randomized to CAD or IAD. Primary objective: To assess if overall survival (OS) with IAD is noninferior to CAD using a one-sided test with an upper bound hazard ratio=1.20, adjusting for stratification factors. Sample size: 756 pts/arm, type I and II error rates of 0.05 and 0.10. Results: 3,040 pts were accrued by SWOG, CALGB, ECOG, NCIC, and EORTC (5/95- 9/08). After 7 m of CAD, 1535 eligible pts achieved PSA ≤4.0 (median age 70 yrs, 4% PS 2, 48% extensive disease, 12% prior neoadjuvant AD) and were randomized to CAD (759 pts) or IAD (770 pts). Grade 3/4 related adverse events: IAD 30.3%, CAD 32.6%. Median follow-up was 9.2 yrs. Median and 10 yr OS: All eligible pts from study entry: 3.6 yrs, 17%; from randomization CAD: 5.8 yrs, 29%; IAD: 5.1 yrs, 23%, HR (IAD/CAD) = 1.09 (95% CI 0.95, 1.24). No interaction with therapy was significant (p>0.25) except suggestion with disease extent (p=0.08): extensive disease HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.79, 1.15, p=0.64); minimal disease: HR=1.23 (95% CI 1.02, 1.48, p=0.035). PC was cause of death in 56% of CAD and 64% IAD pts. OSby race was not different (p=0.44). Conclusions: In HSM1PC, IAD is not proven to be noninferior to CAD. For extensive disease pts IAD was noninferior; however, IAD was statistically inferior in minimal disease pts suggesting that CAD is the preferred treatment in this group.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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