MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final overall survival (OS) in PROpel: Abiraterone (abi) and olaparib (ola) versus abiraterone and placebo (pbo) as first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2023· article· en· W4324136961 on OpenAlexaff
Noel W. Clarke, Andrew J. Armstrong, Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin, Mototsugu Oya, Neal D. Shore, Giuseppe Procopio, João Daniel Guedes, Cagatay Arslan, Niven Mehra, Francis Parnis, Emma Brown, Friederike Schlürmann, Jae Young Joung, Mikio Sugimoto, Oliver Sartor, Yuzhen Liu, Christian Poehlein, Laura Barker, Paula Michelle del Rosario, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointProstate cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioAbiraterone acetatePlaceboProgression-free survivalInterim analysisOncologyPrednisoneConfidence intervalAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerSurgeryRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA16 Background: PROpel (NCT03732820) met its primary endpoint showing significant investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) benefit for patients with mCRPC treated with abi + ola vs abi + pbo in the 1L setting (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.81, P< 0.001, data cut-off: 7/30/2021). Sensitivity analysis by blinded independent central review was consistent. A trend toward OS benefit with abi + ola was observed at the time of the primary rPFS analysis (28.6% maturity, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.12) and a subsequent interim analysis (40.1% maturity, HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66–1.03). We report OS and safety from the pre-planned final analysis (data cut-off: 10/12/2022). Methods: PROpel is a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of 1L therapy for patients with mCRPC eligible for abiraterone. Patients were prospectively assessed for homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status using tumor tissue (FoundationOne CDx) and/or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA; FoundationOne Liquid CDx) tests after randomization 1:1 to ola (300 mg twice daily [bid]) or pbo, and abi (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). Treatment continued until radiographic disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. OS was a key secondary endpoint (2-sided boundary for significance 0.0377). Aggregate results from tumor tissue and ctDNA tests were used to assign patients to HRRm/BRCAm subgroups. Results: Patient (n = 796) characteristics (including prior docetaxel, site of metastasis, symptom score and HRRm status) were generally balanced. There was a consistent trend toward OS benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with abi + ola vs abi + pbo (maturity 47.9%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–1.00, P= 0.0544), with median OS 42.1 months (m) vs 34.7 m, respectively. OS medians and HRs for HRRm, non-HRRm, BRCAm and non-BRCAm subgroups all favored abi + ola vs abi + pbo. In the abi + ola arm the most common Grade ≥3 adverse event was anemia (16.1%). Conclusions: At the prespecified final analysis in PROpel, abi + ola prolonged OS by > 7 m vs standard-of-care abiraterone (abi + pbo) in the ITT population. The median OS of > 42 m is the longest median reported to date in a phase 3 trial in 1L mCRPC. Consistent with rPFS results, a trend toward OS benefit was observed in HRRm, non-HRRm, BRCAm and non-BRCAm subgroups with greatest benefit in the BRCAm subgroup. No new long-term safety issues were identified. These results support the use of abi + ola in 1L mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT03732820 . [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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations53
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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