Comparison of standard-dose and reduced-dose treatment of metastatic prostate cancer with enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide: a rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of low-dose versus standard-dose enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. Methods and analysis: Keyword searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 1 June 2023, with forward and backward citation searches of potentially relevant studies. Studies were included if primary outcome data were reported for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had received reduced doses of enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide. Searches were limited to original full-text and English-language studies. Key outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen response and treatment-related adverse events. The review was performed in accordance with Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidelines. Results: Ten studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria: five phase I studies, two post-hoc analyses of phase III trials and three retrospective analyses. No consistent association between OS, PFS and drug dose was identified. Fewer severe treatment-related adverse events were observed at lower drug doses. Conclusion: This review provides evidence that enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide could be given at a lower than the standard recommended dose without loss of antitumour activity. A prospective near-equivalence randomised trial should be undertaken to compare registered and lower doses of these agents. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023440371.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".