Real-world evaluation of access-driven Canadian treatment sequences in progressive prostate cancer (REACTIVATE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The results of the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial showed that Radium-223 (Ra-223) improves overall survival (OS) and delays onset of first symptomatic skeletal event vs. placebo in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The purpose of the REACTIVATE study was to inform the optimal placement of Ra-233 in the treatment sequence by evaluating clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization using real-world data from multiple Canadian provinces. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed patient outcomes according to Ra-223 placement using administrative databases of four Canadian provinces, encompassing 4301 patients with mCRPC who received at least two lines of life-prolonging therapy (LPT) for mCRPC. Outcomes included OS, event-free survival (EFS), and healthcare resource utilization. Each province was analyzed separately. RESULTS: OS, measured from the start of second-line LPT, differed between provinces: those in Ontario receiving second-line Ra-223 had a longer OS vs. those receiving it in third-line or later (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.95). There was no difference between lines of therapy in patients in British Columbia (HR 1.165, 95% CI, 0.894-1.518, p=0.2576), and OS was numerically worse but not statistically significant in patients receiving Ra-223 in second-line in Quebec (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 0.93-2.24). Other outcomes also varied across provinces, with second-line use of Ra-223 being associated with longer EFS and reduced healthcare utilization vs. third-line use in Ontario but not in Quebec. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists in the management and outcomes of mCRPC between provinces, particularly regarding the placement of Ra-223 in the treatment sequence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".