MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of docetaxel (D) vs androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) as second-line therapy (Rx) after progression on alternative ARSi as first-line Rx for patients who are elderly (≥75 years old) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in a multicenter international database: A SPARTACUSS–Meet-URO 26 study.

2023· article· en· W4324137050 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo Gennusa, Calogero Saieva, Richard M. Lee‐Ying, Pier Vitale Nuzzo, Gian Paolo Spinelli, Elisa Zanardi, Giuseppe Fotia, Sabrina Rossetti, Loana Bueno Valença, Anna Patrikidou, Ricardo Pereira Mestre, Giuseppe Fornarini, Giuseppe Procopio, Daniele Santini, Christopher Sweeney, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Ugo De Giorgi, Antonio Russo, Edoardo Francini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideAbiraterone acetateProstate cancerInternal medicineCohortClinical endpointDocetaxelAndrogen receptorOncologyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

166 Background: About 2/3 of all prostate cancer (PCa) deaths occur in patients aged ≥75, who are frequently diagnosed with advanced PCa. ARSi abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (E) are the most common 1st line Rx for patients with mCRPC. Yet, the optimal treatment sequence for the elderly ≥75 after ARSi failure is still unclear. Methods: Using available medical records, patients aged ≥75 who started ARSi as 1st line Rx for mCRPC within January 2015 - April 2019 and, upon progression, 2nd line alternative ARSi or D were identified from the IRB approved hospital registries of 10 centers in Europe, North and South America. Patients were categorized by type of 2nd line Rx for mCRPC into cohorts AA/E and D. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) from 1st line AA/E start, OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) from 2nd line Rx start, and safety. The Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate endpoint distributions and medians (95% CI). Results: Of the 122 patients identified, 57 (46.7%) had AA/E and 65 (53.3%) D, as 2nd line Rx for mCRPC. Median follow-up was 26.3 months (95% CI, 23.1-27.9 months). Cohort AA/E tended to be older (81 vs 78 years; p=0.001) and with high-volume disease (45.5% vs 25.0%; p=0.022) compared to cohort D. No significant difference in OS from 1st line ARSi onset and OS or rPFS from 2nd line Rx start was found between the 2 cohorts. Cohort AA/E had longer rPFS than cohort D, albeit not significant (18.5 vs 12.0 months; p=0.13). Rates of adverse events (AEs) of any grade (42.1 vs 53.8; p=0.21) and AEs of grade ≥3 (19.3% vs 18.5%; p=1.0) did not show significant differences between the 2 cohorts. Conclusions: Within the limitations of small cohorts and retrospective design, treatment sequences with 2nd line AA/E or D after failure of 1st line alternative ARSi for mCRPC showed similar efficacy and safety in the elderly ≥75 years old.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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