US real-world utilization and outcomes of darolutamide, enzalutamide, and apalutamide for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): DEAR-EXT study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
399 Background: Androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) are recommended for nmCRPC. Darolutamide (DARO) is a structurally distinct & highly potent ARI approved for nmCRPC based on ARAMIS (phase 3). There are no prospective comparative clinical trial data for DARO vs enzalutamide (ENZA) & apalutamide (APA). DEAR (NCT05362149) compared real-world (RW) utilization, tolerability & outcomes of ARIs in 870 patients (pts) with nmCRPC. DEAR-EXT (NCT06013475) expands on DEAR with 1 y more of pt inclusion & follow-up. Methods: DEAR-EXT is a retrospective chart review cohort study of pts in the PPS network of US urology practices who started initial ARI for nmCRPC from 8/2019 to 3/2023. Key outcomes include time to initial ARI discontinuation, reason for discontinuation, time to metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) progression, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) & treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). ARI utilization & tolerability were compared using descriptive frequency statistics; time-to-event outcomes were compared using unadjusted Kaplan–Meier estimates & Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline characteristics. Results: Of all 1375 pts meeting eligibility criteria, 565 (41%) received DARO, 609 (44%) ENZA & 201 (15%) APA. During the study, the number of pts with nmCRPC initiating ARI treatment decreased annually but the proportion starting DARO increased vs ENZA & APA. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment groups; median follow-up was similar for DARO (26.2 mo), ENZA (26.2 mo) & APA (25.5 mo). Median time to discontinuation was not reached (NR; 95% CI 35.5–NR) for DARO, 27.6 mo (23.9–35.6) for ENZA & 26.8 mo (22.6–42.8) for APA. Adjusted HRs showed significant discontinuation risk reductions for DARO vs ENZA (27%) & vs APA (31%) (Table). The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were TEAEs (DARO 10%, ENZA 15%, APA 15%) & disease progression/death (15%, 19%, 18%, respectively). Adjusted HRs for mCRPC progression showed significant risk reductions for DARO vs ENZA (37%) & vs APA (28%) (Table). Times to discontinuation & mCRPC progression were similar for ENZA & APA. PSA response, OS & MFS rates were numerically higher for DARO vs ENZA & APA. TEAEs occurred in 25% of pts on DARO, 28% on ENZA & 30% on APA. Conclusions: These data reinforce DARO as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for nmCRPC that demonstrates potentially greater clinical benefits vs ENZA & APA in RW practice. Clinical trial information: NCT06013475 . HRs from adjusted Cox regression models. HR 95% CI P-value Time to initial ARI discontinuation DARO vs ENZA 0.73 0.61–0.88 0.001 DARO vs APA 0.69 0.54–0.89 0.003 ENZA vs APA 0.95 0.75–1.19 0.639 Time to mCRPC progression* DARO vs ENZA 0.63 0.50–0.80 <0.001 DARO vs APA 0.72 0.53–0.98 0.038 ENZA vs APA 1.14 0.85–1.52 0.373 *Not adjusted for multiple testing comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".