MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403213466 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2024.09.013

Efficacy and Safety of Olaparib Plus Abiraterone Versus Placebo Plus Abiraterone in the First-line Treatment of Patients with Asymptomatic/Mildly Symptomatic and Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Analyses from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial

2024· article· en· W4403213466 on OpenAlexaff
Noel W. Clarke, Andrew J. Armstrong, Mototsugu Oya, Neal D. Shore, Giuseppe Procopio, João Daniel Guedes, Çağatay Arslan, Niven Mehra, Francis Parnis, Emma Brown, Friederike Schlürmann, Jae Young Joung, Mikio Sugimoto, Oliver Sartor, Christian Poehlein, David McGuinness, Arnold Degboe, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineAbirateroneProstate cancerAbiraterone acetateOlaparibAsymptomaticPlaceboInternal medicineOncologyUrologyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In PROpel (NCT03732820), olaparib + abiraterone resulted in a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) benefit and numerically prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo + abiraterone in first-line (1L) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Here, we report post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses in patients with asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic or symptomatic disease at baseline. METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg o.d.) + prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg b.i.d.). For this post hoc exploratory analysis, patients with a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) item 3 score of <4 and no opiate use were classified as asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic; those with a BPI-SF item 3 score of ≥4 and/or opiate use were classified as symptomatic. Subgroup analyses included investigator-assessed rPFS, OS, objective response rate, time to second progression or death, health-related quality of life, and safety. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The median rPFS in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients (n = 560) was 27.6 mo for olaparib + abiraterone versus 19.1 mo for placebo + abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.76). For symptomatic patients (n = 183), equivalent values were 14.1 versus 13.8 mo (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54-1.13). At the final planned OS analysis, the median OS in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients was not reached for olaparib + abiraterone versus 39.5 mo for placebo + abiraterone (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). For symptomatic patients, equivalent values were 22.9 versus 22.8 mo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16). Other outcomes showed no meaningful differences between the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Olaparib + abiraterone provided efficacy benefits in 1L mCRPC patients with either asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic or symptomatic disease. A larger benefit occurred in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: PROpel, a phase 3 clinical trial, looked at whether combining olaparib with abiraterone delays the progression of patients' cancer compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Patients with or without pain symptoms associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were eligible for enrolment into the trial. Results showed that olaparib plus abiraterone reduced the risk of disease progression and death, with a larger benefit observed in patients without or with mild pain symptoms than in those with pain symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207