MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384626656 · doi:10.1111/bju.16130

Poly(adenosine diphosphate‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor combinations in first‐line metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer setting: a systematic review and m <scp>eta‐analysis</scp>

2023· review· en· W4384626656 on OpenAlexaff
Rashid K. Sayyid, Zachary Klaassen, Alejandro Berlín, Soumyajit Roy, Leonardo R. Brandão, Rui Bernardino, Julián Chavarriaga, Di Jiang, Daniel E. Spratt, Neil Fleshner, Christopher J.D. Wallis

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersAstellas PharmaAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineOncologyCohortProstate cancerCochrane LibraryAdverse effectMeta-analysisPlaceboBreast cancerRelative riskCohort studyConfidence intervalCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving a combination of first-line poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) plus androgen receptor axis-targeted agents (ARAT) vs placebo/ARAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of all published Phase III randomised controlled trials using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane (inception until 6 June 2023). Published full-text manuscripts and conference abstracts were inclusion eligible. Study selection/data extraction were independently performed by two authors. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool was used, and certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks, with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs), were generated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Three trials were identified: PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2. Compared to placebo/ARAT, the PARPi/ARAT combination was associated with a 35% rPFS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.76), with 68%, 45%, and 26% improvements in the BReast CAncer gene 1/gene 2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated (BRCA1/2m; P < 0.001), homologous recombination repair-mutated (HRRm; P < 0.001), and non-HRRm cohorts (P = 0.003), respectively. OS data maturity ranged from 31% to 48%, with overall cohort OS data unavailable from MAGNITUDE. The PROpel/TALAPRO-2 pooled analysis demonstrated a 16% OS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.84, 95 CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.02). OS in the HRRm (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95) and the BRCA1/2m cohorts (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18-1.56) were improved, with a higher effect magnitude compared to the overall cohort. This combination was associated with a 45% relative risk increase in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, including 6.22-fold for Grade ≥3 anaemia (31.9% vs 4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of PARPi to ARAT in the first-line mCRPC setting is associated with rPFS benefits across subgroups, with the greatest magnitude of benefit in BRCA1/2m patients. OS benefits remain inconsistent irrespective of HRRm status, with significant increases in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, particularly anaemia. Currently, we suggest this combined approach be selectively offered to HRRm patients, preferentially BRCA1/2m.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.357
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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207