MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association of dynamic changes in serological markers with survival in de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

2023· article· en· W4379334501 on OpenAlexaff
Soumyajit Roy, Amy Trinh Le, Daniel E. Spratt, Yilun Sun, Scott C. Morgan, G. Marwaha, Amar U. Kishan, Christopher J.D. Wallis, Fred Saad, Shawn Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyUnivariate analysisProportional hazards modelCancerMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5069 Background: Prognostic association of serological markers of systemic inflammatory response have been demonstrated in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. However, it remains unknown whether dynamic changes in these markers over time are prognostic earlier in the disease process, namely in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We performed a secondary analysis of LATITUDE trial to determine if dynamic changes in hemoglobin (Hb), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) are predictive of prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We used a joint model approach to determine the association of the dynamic change in the marker levels with PCSS, and OS. For the time-to-event submodel, a multivariable Cox regression model was constructed with treatment arm, skeletal lesion number, liver or lung metastasis, ECOG performance status, and age. For the longitudinal submodel, a linear mixed-effects model was built with an interaction term for treatment arm and time of evaluation in addition to treatment arm, time of evaluation, and baseline value of the serological markers. The two submodels were linked through a shared random effect. Results: Overall 1172 patients were eligible - 580 from the abiraterone plus ADT arm and 592 from the ADT alone group. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 52 months (IQR 47-57). Median number of post-baseline assessments was 16 (IQR 10-28). On univariate joint models, every 10 g/L dynamic increase in Hb was associated with superior PCSS (HR 0.71 [0.67-0.75]) and OS (HR 0.74 [0.68-0.79]) while every 5 points dynamic increase in LMR was associated with a superior PCSS (HR 0.38 [0.26-0.53]) and OS (HR 0.41 [0.29-0.56]). In contrast, dynamic increase in NLR was associated with inferior PCSS (HR 1.29 [1.22-1.36]) and OS (HR 1.29 [1.23-1.36]) while every 10-point dynamic increase in PLR was associated with a small but significant deterioration in PCSS (HR 1.05 [1.04-1.06]) and OS (HR 1.05 [1.04-1.06]), respectively. On multivariate joint modeling, dynamic increase in Hb was also associated with superior PCSS (HR per 10g/L increase 0.74 [0.69-0.79]) and OS (HR per 10g/L rise 0.75 [0.71-0.80]). When dynamic changes in Hb, LMR, NLR, and PLR were included in the same multivariate model with dynamic change in PSA, dynamic increase in Hb continued to show association with significantly superior PCSS (HR per 10g/L rise 0.80 [0.75-0.86]), and OS (HR per 10g/L rise 0.81 [0.75-0.86]), respectively. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that dynamic increase in hemoglobin can predict for superior PCSS, and OS in men with de novo mHSPC treated with ADT with or without abiraterone. These findings need additional validation before implementing routine use of hemoglobin as a prognostic biomarker in de novo mHSPC.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207