Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain outcomes for patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received abiraterone (abi) and olaparib (ola) versus (vs) abi and placebo (pbo) in the phase III PROpel trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5012 Background: PROpel (NCT03732820) met its primary endpoint and showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed rPFS with abi + ola vs abi + pbo at primary analysis (data cut-off [DCO]: 7/30/21; median 24.8 vs 16.6 months (m); hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.81; P<0.001). HRQoL (based on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] total score) was not different when ola was combined with standard-of-care abi. We present data at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) DCO (10/12/22). Methods: PROpel is a randomised, double-blind trial in 1L mCRPC. Time to pain progression (TTPP) was based on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) Item 3 ‘worst pain in 24 hours’ and opiate analgesic use (analgesic quantification algorithm) score. Time to first symptomatic skeletal related event (SSRE) was time to use of therapy to prevent/relieve skeletal symptoms, new bone fractures, spinal compression or surgery on bone metastases. HRQoL was assessed by change from baseline (BL) in FACT-P total and subscale scores, BPI-SF pain severity, pain interference and worst pain score between arms using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: At median follow-up of 33.6 m with abi + ola and 32.1 m with abi + pbo, 17.0% pts (68/399) in the abi + ola arm and 15.1% pts (60/397) in the abi + pbo arm had pain progression (PP) events. The % of pts who had not experienced PP with abi + ola vs abi + pbo was 76.9% vs 77.2% at 24 m and 70.7% vs 71.0% at 36 m. No meaningful difference in TTPP was observed (16% maturity, HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75–1.50, P=0.75 [nominal], median not reached [NR] either arm). The % of pts who had not had a SSRE with abi + ola vs abi + pbo was 86.1% vs 82.2% at 24 m and 80.8 vs 78.5% at 36 m. No meaningful difference in time to SSRE was observed (12% maturity, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55–1.22, P=0.32 [nominal], median NR vs NR). Least-squares mean changes from BL between arms in BPI-SF pain severity (difference, −0.06; 95% CI −0.23–0.12), pain interference (difference, −0.12; 95% CI −0.31–0.06), worst pain score (difference, −0.12; 95% CI −0.35–0.11) and FACT-P total score (difference, −0.54; 95% CI –3.00–1.92) suggest no clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL with abi + ola vs abi + pbo. Least-squares mean change from BL values for FACT-P subscale scores were consistent with FACT-P total score result. Conclusions: PROpel demonstrated a significant delay in rPFS for pts receiving abi + ola vs abi + pbo. Most pts in the trial did not experience a PP event. Abi + ola showed no difference in HRQoL (assessed by FACT-P total and subscale scores, BPI-SF domain and worst pain scores) vs abi + pbo, suggesting pts can derive clinical benefit from abi + ola while maintaining a similar HRQoL compared with a current standard-of-care treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03732820 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".