MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Substudy C of the Canadian cancer trials group (CCTG) IND.234: PC_BETS (Prostate Cancer Biomarker Enrichment and Treatment Selection)—A phase II study of darolutamide (DARO) selected by androgen-receptor (AR) circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients (PTS) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after prior AR pathway inhibitors (ARPIs).

2025· article· en· W4410811541 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Ong, Kim N., Sebastién J. Hotte, Eric Winquist, Fred Saad, Cristiano Ferrario, Robyn Jane Macfarlane, Michael Kolinsky, Aaron R. Hansen, Muhammad Salim, Christian Kollmannsberger, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Lesley Seymour, Som D. Mukherjee, Edmond M. Kwan, Max Sherry, Dongsheng Tu, Mariam Jafri, Alexander W. Wyatt, Wei Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversité de MontréalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen receptorCancerInternal medicineOncologyBiomarkerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5056 Background: DARO is a unique AR antagonist, with preclinical studies suggesting activity in mCRPC models resistant to abiraterone or enzalutamide due to AR amplification (amp) or ligand binding domain mutations. In this substudy (SS) of the (PC-BETS) master protocol, we explored DARO in ARPI-resistant mCRPC stratified by ctDNA AR status. Methods: Pts had mCRPC, ECOG PS 0–1, evaluable disease, biochemical or radiographic progression, prior ARPI, and no cytotoxic chemotherapy in mCRPC. Genomic screening tested plasma cell-free DNA and matched leukocyte DNA via targeted sequencing with a prostate cancer panel including the AR exons, introns, and flank. Only patients with evidence of ctDNA ≥1% were eligible. Pts were assigned to SS by molecular tumor board if biomarker (BM)+; otherwise, BM- pts were randomized to BM- SS. SS-C tested DARO 600mg od in three cohorts—AR amp (C1), AR mutation (C2), or BM- (C3) in a 2-stage design. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined by PSA50 response, RECIST CR/PR, or SD ≥12 weeks. Results: PC-BETS Arm C opened in Jan 2018 and closed Feb 2024; 72 pts were enrolled: 27, 26, and 19 in C1, C2, and C3, respectively. Median age was 74 y (53–88), 100% ECOG PS 0-1. Sixteen pts (22%) had docetaxel for hormone-sensitive disease and none for mCRPC. Prior ARPI were abiraterone (31/72, 43%), enzalutamide (37/72, 51%), or apalutamide (4/72, 6%). Pts had bone (67/72, 93%), lung (9/72, 13%), and/or liver (5/72, 7%) metastases. Baseline PSA was 2–20 in 13/72 (18%), 20–100 in 32/72 (44%) or >100 in 27/72 (38%). CBR was more frequent in AR amp or mutated cohorts than BM– (Table 1). DARO median exposure was 4 months (range 1–29). Common related AEs were fatigue (38%), diarrhea (18%), nausea (15%), and anorexia (11%). Median ctDNA fraction of CBR vs no CBR was: C1: 5 vs 16%, p=0.059; C2: 5 vs 19%, p=0.042; C3: 13 vs 13%, p=0.944. C1 CBR was higher with SPOP mutations (3/5, 60%) and all CBR pts had >10 AR copies. C2 CBR was seen with L702H (3/7, 43%) and T878A (4/7, 57%) but not F877L, W724C/L, or V716M. By data cutoff, all had discontinued therapy (radiographic ± biochemical 61%, biochemical only 22%, symptomatic 7%). DARO was well tolerated, with only 6% discontinuing for AEs. Conclusions: DARO demonstrates modest activity for unselected mCRPC following ARPIs. ctDNA analysis enriched for pts more likely to benefit from DARO including SPOP alterations, AR amp, and AR mutations L702H and T878A. Clinical trial information: NCT03385655 . C1: AR-amp C2: AR-mutated C3: BM negative CBR 5/27 (19%) 7/26 (27%) 2/19 (11%) PSA response 3/27 (11%) 4/26 (15%) 1/19 (5%) TTP-PSA (mo) 2.8 (1.8–3.7) 2.8 (1.9–4.0) 1.9 (1.8–2.8) OS (mo) 12.9 (6.6–19.9) 16.4 (12.9–29.0) 15.5 (12.2–NR)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→