MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prior Local Therapy and First-Line Apalutamide in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

2024· article· en· W4403425493 on OpenAlexaff
Soumyajit Roy, Shawn Malone, Kevin Wing, Simon Chowdhury, Amar U. Kishan, Yilun Sun, Christopher J.D. Wallis, Osama Mohamad, Angela Y. Jia, Umang Swami, Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Scott C. Morgan, Michael Ong, Neeraj Agarwal, Daniel E. Spratt, Eric J. Small, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineHazard ratioAndrogen deprivation therapyPlaceboOncologyAntiandrogenInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProstatectomyPost-hoc analysisUrologyEnzalutamideCancerAndrogen receptorConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Preclinical studies suggest that exposure to prostate-directed local therapy (LT) may influence the efficacy of subsequent systemic therapy including androgen receptor pathway inhibitors. However, there is insufficient clinical evidence to support this premise in patients with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Objective: To determine whether exposure to prior prostate-directed LT (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiation therapy [RT], or both) played any effect-modifying role in the treatment effect of apalutamide on metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc secondary analysis used individual patient data from SPARTAN (Study of Apalutamide [ARN-509] in Men With Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer), a phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at 332 sites in 26 countries. Between October 14, 2013, and December 15, 2016, patients with nmCRPC and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less were randomly assigned to apalutamide vs placebo; all patients received androgen deprivation therapy. The final data analysis was performed on December 31, 2023. Exposure: Prior prostate-directed LT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Separate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed for OS and MFS, which included prior LT, treatment group, and an interaction term, in addition to a minimally sufficient set of confounders. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for MFS and OS were determined for the apalutamide groups with or without prior LT. Results: Among the 1179 evaluable patients included in this analysis, 795 received prior LT and 384 did not. The median age of patients with and without prior LT was 70 (IQR, 45-90) years and 75 (IQR, 50-95) years, respectively. The median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR, 51.5-52.8) months. A differential treatment effect of apalutamide on MFS was observed between patients with and without prior LT (P for interaction = .009), with greater benefits for those with prior LT (adjusted HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.17-0.27]) compared with those without prior LT (adjusted HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.25-0.51]). However, there was insufficient evidence of a differential treatment effect on OS among subgroups stratified by exposure to prior LT (P for interaction = .23), with improved OS in the subgroup with prior LT (adjusted HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.92]) but no significant difference in OS in the subgroup without prior LT (adjusted HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.64-1.31]). Conclusions and Relevance: This post hoc analysis of the SPARTAN trial provides evidence of an interaction between prior LT and apalutamide in patients with nmCRPC, with a clinically significant and more favorable treatment effect from apalutamide on MFS among patients with prior LT. Further studies are needed to validate these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01946204.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207