MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410237684 · doi:10.57264/cer-2025-0023

Overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with apalutamide versus abiraterone acetate: a head-to-head analysis of real-world patients in the USA

2025· article· en· W4410237684 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Lowentritt, Mehmet Asım Bilen, Ibrahim Khilfeh, Carmine Rossi, Shawn Du, Frédéric Kinkead, Lilián Díaz, Dominic Pilon, Lorie Ellis, Neal D. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiraterone acetateMedicineHazard ratioProstate cancerConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelCohortInternal medicineOncologyUrologyGynecologyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Head-to-head studies of survival outcomes associated with different androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) treatments for metastatic castration (hormone)-sensitive prostate cancer have not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to compare 24-month overall survival among ARPI-naive patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate. Materials & methods: Linked de-identified clinical and claims healthcare databases were used to compare overall survival between patients with mCSPC initiating apalutamide or abiraterone acetate treated in community-based urology practices in the USA. Overall survival at 24 months post-treatment initiation (primary analyses) was compared between apalutamide and abiraterone acetate initiators using weighted Cox proportional hazards models (exploratory analyses used all available follow-up). Results: Overall, 1879 and 2073 patients had initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate, respectively (both cohorts: weighted mean age 72 years, 62% were white, and 66% had bone metastasis). At 24 months post-index, patients in the apalutamide cohort had a 26% lower risk of mortality compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.93; p = 0.010), with the difference maintained when outcomes were evaluated using all available follow-up (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.88; nominal p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this nationally representative, real-world head-to-head analysis of nearly 4000 ARPI-naive patients with mCSPC, apalutamide was associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with abiraterone acetate by 24 months post-treatment initiation.

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)0.002
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207