MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of exposure to clinical trials and standard-of-care therapy in metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer: An update.

2024· article· en· W4391303668 on OpenAlexaff
Grace G. Kim, Heba Mohamed, Ishmam Bhuiyan, Corin Macphail, Taylor Sidhu, Amir Emami, Longlong Huang, Shaun Zheng Sun, Scott Tyldesley, Jenny J. Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of the Fraser ValleyUniversity of AlbertaAbbotsford Veterinary ClinicUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyClinical trialCancerInternal medicineStandard of care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

76 Background: Treatment (tx) options for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) have advanced significantly. Literature shows that access to, and uptake of, clinical trials or standard intensified tx in mPC may be low. Methods: We conducted further survival analysis on all consecutive patients (pts) diagnosed with any stage of PC between 2016-2017 in British Columbia, and only included pts with de novo metastasis or later recurrence. We performed descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analysis to examine overall survival (OS). Results: This study included 796 pts with either de novo metastatic (n=554, 69.6%) or recurrent PC (N=242; 30.4%); 743 (93.3%) had metastasis by time of cutoff (Sep 1, 2022). Median age at diagnosis of mPC in all patients was 73 (range 45-98). 790 (99.2%) started androgen deprivation tx (ADT). 263 (35.4%) had additional line of tx started with ADT at hormone sensitive mPC (mHSPC); 309 (38.8%) had 1st line tx started at castrate resistant mPC (mCRPC). Radiotherapy (RT) to prostate for mPC were given to 93 (11.6%). 307 (38.6%) received 1 line of tx; 181 (22.7%), 2; 128 (16.1%), 3 or more. 432 (54.3%) received ≥1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). At cutoff, 474 (59.5%) died; most (n=400; 84.4%) died of prostate cancer. 35 pts who went on trial had longer mOS than those who did not go on trial (63.6 vs 39.5m, p=0.025). Pts with 5 or 6 lines of therapy had numerically longer but statistically similar mOS than those who had 1 (51.7m vs. 63.7m vs. 38.1m, p=0.47). Pts who got 1 line of ARPI had statistically similar mOS than those not exposed to ARPI (43.3m vs. 39.5m, p=0.89). In pts with de novo mPC, more than 1 line (44.3m) or 1 line of ARPI (42.1m) were associated with numerically longer but statistically similar mOS compared to no ARPI (30.1m, p=0.47); pts with recurrent mPC showed an opposite trend (22.5 vs 48.5m vs. not reached, p=0.009). In multivariable analysis, RT to prostate for mPC was associated with better mOS in mHSPC (HR 0.409, 95% CI 0.180 – 0.92, p=0.032) but not mCRPC. None of age, PSA at metastasis, Gleason score, or ADT type was identified as an independent factor affecting mOS. No significant differences in mOS was seen with varying years of mPC diagnosis (2015-2022). Conclusions: Our multicentre data suggest that access to clinical trials and timely RT to prostate in appropriate pts with mPC are associated with longer mOS and should be considered standard of care. Access to clinical trials may be challenging for a significant proportion of pts. Exposure to as many lines of tx/ARPI as possible may potentially help in pts with de novo mPC, but more data are required to determine benefit in all subgroups.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.261 · 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→