MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404717357 · doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae157

Administration and cancer-control outcomes of bone-modifying agents in real-world patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

2024· article· en· W4404717357 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Wenzel, Benedikt Hoeh, Clara Humke, Maria N. Welte, Cristina Cano Garcia, Carolin Siech, Fred Saad, Pierre I Karakiewcz, Derya Tilki, Thomas Steuber, Markus Graefen, Miriam Traumann, Felix K. H. Chun, Philipp Mandel

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineCancerCastrationOncologyInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hormonal agents administered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may lead to osteoporosis, skeletal events, reduced quality of life, and even reduced overall survival (OS). Bone-modifying agents may prevent those events but their effect on cancer-control outcomes remains uncertain. Relying on our institutional tertiary-care database, we explored the effect of bone-modifying agents (bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid and denosumab) on OS and progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC with at least 1 bone metastasis using Kaplan-Meyer estimates and Cox regression models. Of 420 patients with mCRPC, 60% received bone-modifying agents who were younger (68 vs 69 years), with more systemic treatment lines for mCRPC (3 vs 2), and a higher proportion of initial de novo metastatic disease (72% vs 62%, all p ≤ .04) than patients without bone-modifying agents. In progression-free survival analyses, no significant differences were observed between both groups. In OS analyses, significant median OS differences were observed in favor of patients with bone-modifying agents (58 vs 45 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66), even after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.37; both p ≤ .01). In bone-modifying agent–stratified analyses, 57% received denosumab vs 43% bisphosphonates, with a significantly higher rate of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of ≥2 in the bisphosphonates group. In progression-free and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed between bisphosphonates and denosumab patients, with numerically better results in progression-free survival analysis for denosumab after adjusting for covariates. The cumulative rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw at any treatment time was 12% in both groups and significantly decreased over time. Real-world data suggest a relatively low administration rate of bone-modifying agents in patients with osseous mCRPC. However, real-world data also suggest an OS benefit when bone-modifying agents are used, even after controlling for possible confounding patient and tumor characteristics.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207