A phase III randomized trial comparing intermittent versus continuous androgen suppression for patients with PSA progression after radical therapy: NCIC CTG PR.7/SWOG JPR.7/CTSU JPR.7/UK Intercontinental Trial CRUKE/01/013.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3 Background: In men with PSA recurrence after radical radiotherapy (RRT), intermittent androgen suppression (IAS) has been suggested by phase II trials to improve quality of life (QoL) but effects on survival are unknown. In this Intergroup randomized phase III trial, we compared IAS vs continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) to test for non-inferiority of IAS with respect to overall survival (OS). Methods: Eligible men had rising PSA > 3.0 ng/ml >1 year post RRT, either initial or salvage, for localized prostate cancer. Patients could receive up to 1 year of neo/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) completed >1 year prior. Stratification factors were time since RRT (>1-3 vs >3 years), initial PSA (<15 vs >15), prior radical prostatectomy and prior ADT. IAS was delivered for 8 months in each cycle with restart when PSA reached >10 ng/ml off treatment. Primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included time to hormone refractory state (HR), QoL, cholesterol/HDL/LDL, duration of treatment/non-treatment intervals, time to testosterone and potency recovery. The independent DSMC recommended halting the trial after a planned interim analysis demonstrated that a pre-specified stopping boundary for non-inferiority was crossed. Results: 1,386 patients were randomized to IAS (690) or CAD (696) arms. Arms were balanced for important baseline factors. Median follow up was 6.9 years. IAS patients completed a median of 2 x 8 month cycles (range: 1-9). 524 deaths were observed (268 on IAS vs 256 on CAD). Median OS was 8.8 vs 9.1 years on IAS and CAD arms, respectively (HR 1.02, 95%CI 0.86-1.21; p for non-inferiority [HR IAS vs CAD ≥ 1.25] = 0.009). The IAS arm had more disease related (122 vs 97) and fewer unrelated (134 vs 146) deaths. Time to HR was statistically significantly improved on the IAS arm (HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.67-0.98; p = 0.024). IAS patients had reduced hot flashes, but otherwise there was no evidence of differences in AEs, including myocardial events or osteoporotic fractures. Conclusions: In men with PSA recurrence after RRT IAS, given as described herein, is non-inferior to CAD with respect to OS. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".