MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with radium-223 following external beam radiation therapy: REASSURE US subset.

2024· article· en· W4391301992 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Sartor, Peter S. Conti, Mary‐Ellen Taplin, Daniel Y. Song, Saby George, Jeffrey Tomaszewski, John Sylvester, C.A. Mantz, Robert Given, Robert K. Brookland, Jeffrey Meltzer, Matthew J. Korn, Jacqueline Parkin, Svetlana Babajanyan, Celestia S. Higano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadium-223External beam radiationRadiation therapyExternal beam radiotherapyOncologyRadiumInternal medicineProstateCancerUrologyBone metastasisRadiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

106 Background: In the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial, radium-223 (Ra-223) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit and a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). REASSURE (NCT02141438) is a global, prospective, single-arm, observational study of Ra-223 use in patients with mCRPC with bone metastases within routine clinical settings. Utilizing data from the second planned interim analysis, we evaluated safety outcomes in patients with mCRPC treated with Ra-223 following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the US. Methods: In this descriptive analysis (data cutoff 3-20-2019), we included patients who received EBRT to bone prior to Ra-223 (≤2 years prior to Ra-223 first dose); results are presented relative to the overall US subset of patients enrolled into REASSURE. The focus of this abstract is on incidence of hematological toxicities, bone fractures, and second primary malignancies (SPM). Results: Of N=498 patients in the US subset, 118 patients received prior EBRT to bone. Median duration of observation was 11.7 months among patients who received EBRT and 11.9 months for the overall US subset. Any-grade drug-related hematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 8% (10/118) and 9% (47/498) of patients who received EBRT and the overall subset, respectively (Table). Grade ≥3 drug-related hematological TEAEs occurred in 5% (6/118) and 6% (32/498) of patients who received EBRT and the overall subset, respectively. Bone fractures occurred in 7% (8/118) and 4% (19/498) of patients who received EBRT and the overall subset, respectively. Six SPMs occurred in 5/118 patients who received EBRT (4%), and 11 SPMs occurred in 10/498 patients in the overall subset (2%). Results of bone fracture events by bone health agent use will be included in the full presentation. Conclusions: In this descriptive analysis of real-world data, patients who received EBRT prior to Ra-223 did not demonstrate an increased incidence of hematological toxicities relative to the overall US subset. Although percent of SPMs and bone fractures seems higher among patients treated with EBRT relative to the overall US subset, the real-world incidence of these events remains low. [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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→