MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intensification of ADT with enzalutamide in high-risk patients with biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy undergoing salvage radiation: Initial results from RTOG 3506 (STEEL).

2024· article· en· W4391303197 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin M. Posadas, Hiram A. Gay, Joseph P. Rodgers, Todd M. Morgan, Ying Xiao, James B. Yu, Jeff M. Michalski, Myriam Bouchard, Neil Desai, Ryan K. Funk, Thomas Boike, Donald James Jurgens, Anthony Wong, Xinglei Shen, Lloyd Miyawaki, Christopher S Bland, John Hairston, Howard M. Sandler, Stephanie L. Pugh, Felix Y. Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerUrologyAndrogen deprivation therapyBiochemical recurrenceRadiation therapyClinical endpointEnzalutamideInternal medicineSurgeryOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancerAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

131 Background: Patients with high-risk features who experience biochemical relapse (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) benefit from the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to salvage radiotherapy (SRT). We hypothesized that intensification of androgen receptor (AR) blockade with enzalutamide would improve SRT outcomes for high-risk patients. Methods: Post prostatectomy prostate cancer patients who have had BCR (PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL) with at least 1 high-risk feature (Gleason 8-10, seminal vesicle invasion, pN1, persistent PSA >0.1 ng/mL after RP, and PSA ≥ 0.7 ng/mL) were eligible. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 24 months of ADT with an LHRH analog (LHRHa) or intensified ADT comprised of LHRHa + enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) with progression defined as PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL or initiation of new therapy following SRT. The target accrual of 170 patients provided 80% power to detect a HR=0.65 using a one-sided logrank test with a type I error of 0.10. Results: Between April 2019 and August 2022, 188 patients were enrolled. The patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Median age was 64 years. Nodal involvement (pN1), pT3a-b, and Gleason 9 were noted in 22%, 77%, and 52% of patients, respectively. Over 70% had > 1 aggressive feature. Median follow-up time at the time of this report was 15.8 months. Prostatic fossa and pelvic SRT were mandatory. Para-aortic radiotherapy (RT), and lymph node and prostatic fossa lesion RT boosts were left at the discretion of the radiation oncologist. PFS favored the enzalutamide-intensified arm (HR=0.72, 80% confidence interval [CI]:0.56-0.94, one-sided p=0.14). Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) related to treatment in the standard versus enzalutamide arms were 11 vs. 23%, while Grade 4 AEs were 4% vs. 1%, respectively. The most common AEs (all grades, >15%) included hot flashes, fatigue, diarrhea, and decreased lymphocytes. The grade 3+ AEs (>3%) included decreased lymphocytes and hypertension. The largest differences (>7%) in AEs included insomnia, decreased lymphocytes. Diarrhea was less frequent with enzalutamide (40% vs 54%). Conclusions: The addition of enzalutamide to standard ADT did not meaningfully increase toxicity. While there was a trend toward PFS benefit from intensification, it has not yet met statistical significance. Updates on PFS and other clinical endpoints including quality of life will be reported with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03809000 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207