MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Concurrent chemo-hormonal therapy of enzalutamide (ENZ) and cabazitaxel (CAB) in patients (Pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Final analysis of objective response rate (ORR), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS).

2023· article· en· W4379281805 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Sokolova, Julie N. Graff, Claire E.P. Smith, Tomasz M. Beer, Emile Latour, Petros Grivas, Michael T. Schweizer, Celestia S. Higano, Joshi J. Alumkal, Jacqueline Vuky, Evan Y. Yu, Heather H. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerEnzalutamideCabazitaxelInternal medicineProgression-free survivalConfidence intervalResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsChemotherapyOncologyHormonal therapyCancerProgressive diseaseUrologySurgeryAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5047 Background: We previously reported the PSA response rate and toxicity data of a phase 1/2 single-arm, multi-institutional trial to examine the efficacy and safety of co-administration of ENZ + CAB in mCRPC without prior chemotherapy given in the mCRPC setting. We found that full doses of ENZ (160 mg daily) and CAB (25 mg/m2) were tolerable and that 80% of pts had PSA decline ≥50%. Here, we report the final analysis of ORR, rPFS and OS. Methods: We calculated the ORR (CR/PR) and 95% confidence intervals using the Clopper-Pearson Exact Method. We determined response according to RECIST 1.1 for measurable disease and Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria for non-measurable (bone) disease. We estimated median rPFS (time from the study entry to the time of confirmed progression (radiographic or clinical) or death) and OS (time from the study entry to death) with 95% confidence intervals using the Kaplan-Meier method; data cutoff was 6/1/22. Statistical analysis was performed using R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Results: 37 pts consented and 35 were included in the efficacy analyses (1 withdrew consent, 1 was lost to follow up before efficacy assessment); 7/35 (20%) had prior exposure to chemotherapy given for mHSPC and 9/35 (25%) had prior exposure to abiraterone (ABI), including 2/35 (25.7%) with prior exposure to chemotherapy and ABI. 28 pts had at least one on-study trial imaging study and were evaluable for ORR. After a median follow-up of 23.7 (range: 4.9 to 62.4) months (mo), median OS was 25.1 mo (95%CI 19.4 - 37.6 mo). Median PSA PFS was 11.9 mo (95%CI 9.2 - 15.4), and median rPFS was 22.2 mo (95%CI 13.6 - 25.2). PK assessments revealed that ENZ decreased CAB levels: CAB (monotherapy) Cmax 178.9ng*h/ml vs CAB (in the presence of ENZ) Cmax 85.5 ng*h/ml (p<0.05). Conclusions: The combination of ENZ+CAB in this heterogeneous mCRPC population, which included about a quarter of pts with prior chemotherapy and ABI exposure, resulted in an OS of 22.5 mo comparing favorably with the OS of 25.2 mo seen in the FIRSTANA trial of single agent CAB in docetaxel naïve men, 15.1 mo post chemotherapy in the TROPIC trial, and 13.6 mo in the post-docetaxel, post-ABI in the CARD trial. Of note, the rPFS in this trial was 22.2 months compared to 5.1 months in FIRSTANA suggesting improved efficacy; however cross-trial comparisons are discouraged due to several confounders. Chemo-hormonal therapies and prognostic/predictive biomarkers warrant further study in mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02522715 . [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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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