MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Darolutamide observational (DAROL) study in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Second interim analysis.

2023· article· en· W4379281725 on OpenAlexaff
Evan Y. Yu, Christopher Pieczonka, Hiroyoshi Suzuki, James L. Bailen, Geoffrey Gotto, Joelle P. Hamilton, Hiroji Uemura, Declan G. Murphy, Thierry Lebrét, Murilo Luz, Jorge Ortiz, Patrick Adorjan, Javeed Khan, Alberto Briganti, Andrew J. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityProstate cancerClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectInterim analysisIncidence (geometry)CancerOncologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17095 Background: In ARAMIS (NCT02200614), darolutamide (DARO) significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) by ~2 years (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34–0.50) and reduced the risk of death by 31% (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.88) compared with placebo in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), with a favorable tolerability profile. The ongoing DAROL study (NCT04122976) aims to understand the real-world safety and effectiveness of DARO in patients (pts) with nmCRPC. We report results from the pre-planned second interim analysis (IA). Methods: DAROL is a global, open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study in pts aged ≥18 years with confirmed nmCRPC for whom the decision to be treated with DARO is decided pre-enrollment. The primary endpoint is safety, including incidence, severity, and frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary endpoints are patient demographics and disease characteristics, treatment duration, MFS, overall survival (OS), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and PSA response. Primary and secondary endpoints are reported after 300 pts completed ≥6 mo of treatment. All treated pts were assessed for safety while efficacy was evaluated in pts who did not violate any eligibility criteria and had ≥1 post-baseline assessment (cut-off October 11, 2022). Results: Of the 300 treated pts, the percentage enrolled in North America/Europe/Asia Pacific/Latin America was 45%/30%/25%/ < 1%, respectively. Median age was 80 years; 51% had a reported Gleason score > 7; 92% had a reported ECOG performance status of 0/1. Median baseline (BL) PSA was 3.9 ng/mL (range 0–248.0), with 21% of pts reporting PSA < 2 ng/mL. Median BL PSA doubling time (PSADT) was 5.3 mo (range 0–36.2), with 42% of pts reporting PSADT > 6 mo. At the data cut-off, median follow-up time was 14.8 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 10.9–19.3) and median treatment duration was 13.4 mo (IQR 9.3–17.8). The incidences of TEAEs and DARO-related TEAEs were generally low (Table), consistent with the safety profile of DARO reported in ARAMIS. Fatigue occurred in ≥5% of pts. For the 263 pts eligible for efficacy analysis, median time to PSA progression was 17.6 mo (95% CI 13.2–19.0); MFS/OS data remain immature. PSA declines from baseline of ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥90% at any time were observed in 80%, 76%, and 54% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: In the DAROL second IA, under real-world conditions, DARO continued to show a favorable safety profile, consistent with the clinical profile of ARAMIS, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT04122976 . [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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.298 · 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→