MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exploration of circulating tumor cell (CTC) conversion and CTC0 as prognostic biomarkers for efficacy in TALAPRO-2: Phase 3 study of talazoparib (TALA) + enzalutamide (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) + ENZA as first-line (1L) treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2024· article· en· W4399394481 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Yip, Karim Fizazi, Douglas Laird, Nobuaki Matsubara, Arun Azad, Jae Young Joung, Peter C.C. Fong, Siska Van Bruwaene, Glenn Liu, Éric Voog, Cezary Szczylik, Jijumon Chelliserry, Cynthia G. Healy, Xun Lin, Neeraj Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineEnzalutamidePlaceboOncologyInternal medicineCancerPathologyProstate cancerAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5023 Background: In TALAPRO-2 (NCT03395197), pts unselected for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations received TALA + ENZA or PBO + ENZA in 1L mCRPC. TALA + ENZA significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs PBO + ENZA. In a previous analysis of five randomized phase 3 mCRPC trials, CTC reduction from ≥5 to <5 per 7.5 mL of blood (CTC conversion) or from >0 to 0 (CTC0) at a Week 13 timepoint was shown to be prognostic for overall survival, with higher discriminatory power than PSA reduction (Heller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:572-580). We examined CTC conversion and CTC0 as candidate prognostic biomarkers for rPFS in TALAPRO-2. Methods: Blood was serially collected and shipped real-time for CTC enumeration using CELLSEARCH (Menarini Silicon Biosystems) at a central laboratory (Covance). Collection timepoints were screening, Weeks 1, 9, 17, and 25, and safety follow-up visit. Baseline CTC counts were based on Week 1 (screening results were used if Week 1 results were unavailable). CTC reductions were assessed in the safety population as CTC conversion or as CTC0. Data cutoff date was August 16, 2022. Results: At baseline, 653 pts in the intent-to-treat population were evaluable for CTC counts: 213/653 (33%) had CTC counts ≥5 per 7.5 mL of blood, and 353/653 (54%) had CTC counts >0. At Week 9, 144 pts were evaluable for CTC conversion (71 TALA + ENZA, 73 PBO + ENZA), with 254 evaluable for CTC0 (119 TALA + ENZA, 135 PBO + ENZA). CTC conversion at Week 9 proved prognostic for rPFS benefit for TALA + ENZA (hazard ratio [HR]=0.13, 95% CI [0.06–0.32], 2-sided P<0.0001) and PBO + ENZA (HR=0.16 [0.07–0.40], P<0.0001). Similarly, CTC0 at Week 9 was prognostic for TALA + ENZA (HR=0.33 [0.19–0.57], P<0.0001) and PBO + ENZA (HR=0.41 [0.24–0.69], P=0.0006). At Week 17, 132 pts were evaluable for CTC conversion (64 TALA + ENZA, 68 PBO + ENZA), with 227 evaluable for CTC0 (114 TALA + ENZA, 113 PBO + ENZA). CTC conversion at Week 17 proved prognostic for rPFS benefit for TALA + ENZA (HR=0.28 [0.10–0.73], P=0.0065) and for PBO + ENZA (HR=0.26 [0.11–0.59], P=0.0006). CTC0 at Week 17 was also prognostic for TALA + ENZA (HR=0.16 [0.09–0.30], P<0.0001) and for PBO + ENZA (HR=0.36 [0.20–0.64], P=0.0004). Conclusions: CTC reduction at Week 9 and 17 proved prognostic of improved rPFS in both treatment arms in TALAPRO-2. To our knowledge, this is the first time such an association has been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial featuring a PARP inhibitor. Not all regions supported CTC collection, and missing results mainly reflected technical and logistical limitations. These results support the broad prognostic utility of CTC enumeration in mCRPC, particularly in the context of PARP inhibitor therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03395197 .

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy→French-language works237,207→