Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with talazoparib (TALA) plus enzalutamide (ENZA) vs. placebo (PBO) plus ENZA in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Subgroup analysis of patients with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) pretreatment in the TALAPRO-2 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
116 Background: In TALAPRO-2 (NCT03395197), TALA +ENZA vs PBO + ENZA demonstrated significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, a manageable adverse event (AE) profile, and a delay in time to definitive clinical meaningful deterioration in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) overall and across all pre-specified subgroups. This post hoc analysis evaluated PROs in patients with prior NHT treatment. Methods: PROs were assessed on day 1 and scheduled visits (every 4 weeks until week 53 then every 8 weeks) until radiographic progression using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its prostate cancer module, QLQ-PR25. PRO analyses, performed in NHT-pretreated/ patients for GHS/QoL functional and symptom scales, included on treatment comparison of overall change from baseline (per longitudinal repeated measures mixed-effects model). Results: Of the 805 men randomized and treated, 49 patients were included in this subgroup analysis (TALA + ENZA n= 22, PBO + ENZA n= 27). A statistically significant and clinically meaningful estimated overall change from baseline favored TALA + ENZA in physical functioning (20.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 8.8, 32.2]; P=0.0007), role functioning (20.4 [95% CI 4.8, 35.9]; P=0.0103), pain (32.9 [95% CI 50.3, 15.5]; P=0.0002), and constipation (12.5 [24.4, 0.6]; P=0.0399). No significant differences disfavoring TALA + ENZA were observed. Conclusions: In these subgroup analyses of NHT pretreated patients, significant differences in PROs favoring TALA + ENZA were observed. Results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample sizes and exploratory nature of this analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT03395197 .
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".