MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410338114 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.015

Patient-reported Outcomes in KEYNOTE-921: Pembrolizumab with Docetaxel and Prednisone for Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4410338114 on OpenAlexaff
Nobuaki Matsubara, Daniel P. Petrylak, Raffaele Ratta, Ernesto Korbenfeld, Rustem Gafanov, Loı̈c Mourey, Tilman Todenhöfer, Howard Gurney, Gero Kramer, Andries M. Bergman, Paweł Zalewski, Maria De Santis, Andrew J. Armstrong, Winald R. Gerritsen, Russell K. Pachynski, Todd L. Saretsky, Sameer R. Ghate, Fan Wang, Charles Schloss, Karim Fizazi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsLakeridge Health
FundersBayerAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelPembrolizumabProstate cancerPrednisoneOncologyInternal medicineAbirateroneEnzalutamideCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-921 study, the combination of pembrolizumab with docetaxel did not improve efficacy outcomes significantly in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after next-generation hormonal agents (NHAs). This analysis of KEYNOTE-921 assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: Eligible patients were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab or placebo, both with docetaxel and prednisone. The time to pain progression measured by the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form was a secondary end point. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores, including disease-related symptoms, assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and EuroQol five-dimension five-level were prespecified exploratory end points. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The PRO analysis set comprised 1028 patients; the median follow-up was 22.7 mo from baseline until database cutoff (June 20, 2022). The median time to pain progression was 21.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.7 to not reached [NR]) and NR (95% CI 13.8-NR) in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.77-1.43). Changes from baseline in PRO end points were similar between treatment arms and remained generally stable throughout the study. Limitations include a lack of formal hypothesis testing to detect between-arm differences in PROs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: No meaningful differences in PROs were observed in patients with mCRPC treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. These findings indicate that adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy does not positively or negatively impact HRQol in patients with mCRPC previously treated with NHAs.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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