MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Enzalutamide combination treatment (tx) suspension in men with high-risk biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer: Outcomes from EMBARK.

2024· article· en· W4391302877 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Freedland, Paul Sieber, Martin Gleave, Ugo De Giorgi, Bryan A. Mehlhaff, Daniel C. Danila, Curtis Dunshee, Costas D. Lallas, Marc Pliskin, Yiyun Tang, Gabriel P. Haas, Matt Rosales, Jamal Tarazi, Fabian Zohren, David Russell, Neal D. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamideProstate cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicinebreakpoint cluster regionAndrogen receptorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

156 Background: The 3-arm EMBARK trial found statistically superior and clinically meaningful improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS) with enzalutamide + leuprolide acetate (enza combo) and enza monotherapy vs placebo + leuprolide (alone) in patients (pts) with high-risk BCR prostate cancer. Tx was suspended at week 37 in 321 (90.9%) pts in the enza combo arm and 240 (67.8%) in the leuprolide-alone arm based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. Outcomes in the enza combo vs leuprolide-alone arms by tx suspension status are reported. Methods: The phase 3 EMBARK study enrolled pts with high-risk BCR, defined as PSA doubling time ≤9 months, and PSA ≥2 ng/mL above nadir post-radiotherapy (RT) or ≥1 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative RT. Pts were randomized 1:1 to enza 160 mg/day + leuprolide (22.5 mg every 12 weeks) or leuprolide alone. Tx was suspended at week 37 if serum PSA was <0.2 ng/mL at week 36 and restarted when PSA reached ≥2 ng/mL (primary RP) or ≥5 ng/mL (no primary RP). A secondary endpoint was the proportion of pts with undetectable PSA 2 years after suspension. MFS (per blinded independent central review) was analyzed descriptively between tx arms by suspension status. P-values were nominal. Results: The 3-year MFS rate (95% CI) in the suspension group was 94.4% (91.2–96.5%) with enza combo and 90.0% (85.3–93.2%) with leuprolide alone; in the no suspension group, 3-year MFS rates were 76.2% (33.2–93.5%) and 66.9% (55.4–76.1%), respectively. MFS in the suspension group was improved with enza combo vs leuprolide alone (HR 0.470, 95% CI 0.308–0.717; P=0.0003); no difference in MFS was observed in the no suspension group (HR 0.719, 95% CI 0.225–2.295; P=0.5763), although sample size was small for enza combo (n=9). Compared with no suspension, a higher proportion of pts in the suspension group received prior RP and a lower proportion received prior RT (Table). Two years after suspension, 16.8% (95% CI, 12.9–21.4%) of enza combo pts and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.2–14.0%) of leuprolide-alone pts had undetectable PSA ( P=0.0089). Conclusions: MFS was improved with enza combo vs leuprolide alone for pts with BCR who suspended tx. No difference in MFS was observed in the no suspension group, but firm conclusions were precluded by the limited number of pts who did not suspend tx with enza combo. Pts who suspended tx had higher rates of prior RP vs those who did not. Pts who had received enza combo prior to tx suspension were more likely to have undetectable PSA 2 years thereafter compared with those who received leuprolide alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02319837 . [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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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