MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among men receiving talazoparib (TALA) + enzalutamide (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) + ENZA as first-line (1L) treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Results from a phase 3 study (TALAPRO-2).

2023· article· en· W4379281896 on OpenAlexaff
Neeraj Agarwal, Arun Azad, Nobuaki Matsubara, Fred Saad, Ugo De Giorgi, Jae Young Joung, Peter C.C. Fong, Robert J. Jones, Stefanie Zschaebitz, Jan Oldenburg, Neal D. Shore, Curtis Dunshee, Joan Carles, André P. Fay, Paul Cislo, Jane Chang, Cynthia G. Healy, Alexander Niyazov, Karim Fizazi

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
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamidePlaceboProstate cancerInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)CancerOncologyAlternative medicineAndrogen receptorNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5013 Background: TALAPRO-2 (NCT03395197) showed statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression free survival with TALA + ENZA (n=402) vs PBO + ENZA (n=403) (HR=0.63 95% CI 0.51-0.78; P<0.001) in men receiving 1L treatment for mCRPC. Here we report PRO endpoints from TALAPRO-2. Methods: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline) and at scheduled visits until radiographic progression (every 4 weeks until week 53, and then every 8 weeks) using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its prostate cancer module, QLQ-PR25. Prespecified PRO analyses included overall mean change from baseline (per longitudinal repeated measures mixed-effects model) and time to definitive clinically meaningful (≥10-point change) deterioration (TTD). Between-arm comparisons of TTD were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of the 805 men randomized and treated, 793 had a baseline score followed by at least 1 post-baseline score; TALA + ENZA (n=395), PBO + ENZA (n=398). Although the treatment effect on global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) significantly favored PBO + ENZA, the predefined threshold of clinical meaningfulness was not met; moreover, no significant differences between the arms were observed in any functioning scales. A significantly longer TTD in GHS/QoL was observed for TALA + ENZA; HR=0.780 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.99), P=0.038; median: 30.8 months vs 25.0 months. A numerical greater delay in TTD in urinary symptoms was longer for TALA + ENZA; HR=0.759 (95% CI: 0.543, 1.061), P=0.105; median not reached vs 35.9 months. Additional PRO results will be presented. Conclusions: Compared with PBO + ENZA, in the TALA + ENZA arm there was 1) a modest deterioration disfavoring GHS/QoL (deterioration was not clinically meaningful based on the predefined threshold), and 2) a maintenance in all functioning scales. TTD in GHS/QoL was significantly longer with TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA, reflecting improved disease control. These results complement the benefit-risk assessment of TALAPRO-2. Clinical trial information: NCT03395197 . [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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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