MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4309013737 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29110680

Utilization Trends of Novel Hormonal Agents in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Quebec

2022· article· en· W4309013737 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jason Hu, Armen Aprikian, Ramy Saleh, Alice Dragomir

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideAbiraterone acetateProstate cancerTolerabilityTaxaneCohortInternal medicineCabazitaxelOncologyChemotherapySpecialtyRetrospective cohort studyCancerPopulationAndrogen deprivation therapyBreast cancerAdverse effectFamily medicineAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The introduction of novel hormonal agents (NHAs) such as abiraterone acetate (ABI) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was an important milestone given their survival benefits, tolerability, and ease of administration relative to taxane chemotherapies. This descriptive study sought to describe the utilization trends of ABI and ENZ in patients with mCRPC in the early years after their approval in the province of Quebec in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort was extracted from Quebec public healthcare administrative databases. The cohort included first-time users of NHAs (ABI or ENZ) from 2011 to 2016. The primary analyses aimed to describe the overall temporal trends (2011-2016) of NHA initiators by chemotherapy status (chemotherapy-naïve versus post-chemotherapy), and prescribing specialty (medical oncology versus urology versus others). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 2183 patients, with 1562 (72%) in the chemotherapy-naïve group and 621 (28%) in the post-chemotherapy group. While the majority of patients were post-chemotherapy NHA initiators in 2012, this proportion decreased over time and accounted for only 13% of NHA initiators by the end of 2016. Medical oncologists were the most frequent prescribers of NHAs (upwards of 60%) throughout 2012 but fell to 45% by the end of 2016. Conversely, the proportion of prescriptions by urologists increased from 22% in 2012 to 42% in 2016. CONCLUSION: Over time, there was an increasing proportion of (1) patients who initiated NHAs without prior chemotherapy treatment, (2) NHA prescribing by urologists, and (3) ENZ users. Taken together, this implies that the introduction of NHAs has altered the management of mCRPC and urologists quickly adopted NHAs into their practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→