Darolutamide in Japanese patients with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: Phase 3 <scp>ARASENS</scp> subgroup analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the global ARASENS study (NCT02799602), darolutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly reduced risk of death by 32.5% versus placebo plus ADT and docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.80; p < 0.0001), with a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We investigated outcomes in Japanese participants. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, plus ADT and docetaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: (78%/79% vs. 46%/43%), The ECOG performance status 0 (92%/88% vs. 72%/71%), de novo mHSPC (95%/97% vs. 86%/87%), and Gleason score ≥8 (94%/92% vs. 78%/79%). Median treatment duration was 43.3/15.4 months for darolutamide/placebo. The overall survival HR for darolutamide versus placebo was 0.91 (95% CI 0.50-1.64), despite 85% of patients in the placebo group receiving subsequent life-prolonging therapy. Darolutamide prolonged time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.17-0.55). Treatment-emergent adverse event incidences were generally similar between groups. Adverse events known to be associated with docetaxel (e.g., neutropenia) were more frequent in the Japanese versus overall population. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, efficacy outcomes showed positive trends for darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel in Japanese patients with mHSPC, consistent with the overall population, despite higher risk factors. The combination was well tolerated, with no new safety signals in Japanese patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".