MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer based on baseline body mass index (BMI): A subgroup analysis from the randomized, phase 3 HERO study versus leuprolide (LEU).

2022· article· en· W4286295779 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Saad, Daniel J. George, Michael S. Cookson, Daniel R. Saltzstein, Ronald Tutrone, Marc B. Garnick, Bruce Alan Brown, Sophia Lu, Mark Fallick, Sarah Hanson, E. David Crawford, Neal D. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOverweightBody mass indexUnderweightInternal medicineSubgroup analysisTestosterone (patch)Androgen deprivation therapyRandomized controlled trialGynecologyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5073 Background: BMI has been correlated with adverse prostate cancer outcomes, such as risk of biochemical failure, mortality and androgen deprivation therapy complications. Relugolix is a FDA-approved, once-daily oral GnRH receptor antagonist that has demonstrated superior continuous suppression of testosterone (T) to castrate levels through Week 48 compared to LEU (96.7% vs 88.8%, respectively; Shore N, NEJM 2020;382:2187) in men with advanced prostate cancer (APC). This HERO subgroup analysis looks at the impact of baseline BMI on efficacy and safety. Methods: HERO was a phase 3 randomized, open-label study to evaluate relugolix vs LEU in 930 men with APC. This analysis looked at all men enrolled and treated in the HERO study divided by baseline BMI (BMI subgroups: <25.0 [underweight and healthy weight]; 25.0 – 29.9 [overweight]; and >29.9 [obese]). Assessments included sustained T suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng/dL) from Day 29 through 48 weeks, early T suppression to castrate levels (Day 4 and Day 15), prostate specific antigen (PSA) response (>50% decrease from baseline) at Day 15 with confirmation at Day 29, and profound castration rate (<20 ng/dL) at Day 15. T recovery subset analysis was not included due to low patient numbers. All analyses performed were descriptive. Results: Of the 930 men (relugolix:622; LEU:308) treated in HERO, 287 (30.9%) men had BMI <25, 424 (45.6%) were 25 – 29.9, 219 (23.5%) were >29.9. Sustained castration rates through 48 weeks were higher for the relugolix group than the LEU group and results for select key secondary endpoints were generally consistent across BMI categories, although PSA response proportions were lower in obese patients (table). No differences were noted in the incidence or types of adverse events within treatment groups in the subgroups analyzed. Conclusions: In this HERO study subgroup analysis, relugolix demonstrated greater continuous T suppression than LEU regardless of baseline BMI. Although higher BMI has been associated with poorer outcomes, we did not observe a similar trend with T responses. A numerically lower PSA response was seen in obese patients. Additional research with longer follow-up is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03085095. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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