Final patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in unselected men receiving talazoparib (TALA) + enzalutamide (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) + ENZA as initial treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Results from the phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
11120 Background: TALAPRO-2 demonstrated statistically significant improvement with TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA in radiographic progression-free survival (primary endpoint; HR=0.63; 95% CI, 0.51–0.78; P <0.0001) in unselected men with mCRPC. Prior PRO analyses (data cutoff: Aug 16, 2022) reported no clinically meaningful between-arm differences in any functioning scales and a longer time to definitive deterioration (TTDD) in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) for TALA + ENZA (median 30.8 mo) vs PBO + ENZA (25.0 mo; HR=0.780; 95% CI, 0.62–0.99; P =0.038). Here we report updated (data cutoff: Sep 3, 2024) final PROs for the unselected cohort. Methods: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline) and scheduled visits (every 4 weeks until week 53, and then every 8 weeks) until radiographic progression using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its prostate cancer module, QLQ-PR25, and worst pain by BPI-SF item 3. Prespecified PRO analyses included overall mean change from baseline (per longitudinal repeated measures mixed-effects model), time to deterioration (TTD), and TTDD. The clinically meaningful threshold was ≥10 points for EORTC scales and ≥2 points for BPI-SF. Between-arm comparisons of TTD/TTDD were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of the 805 men randomized to treatment, 793 (TALA + ENZA, n=395; PBO + ENZA, n=398) had 1 baseline + ≥1 follow-up PRO score. With extended follow-up, median TTDD for GHS/QoL in the TALA + ENZA arm was 41.5 mo vs 34.1 mo in the PBO + ENZA arm (HR=0.878; 95% CI, 0.704–1.096; P =0.2487). Median TTDD for urinary symptoms in the TALA + ENZA arm was 59.8 mo vs 58.0 mo in the PBO + ENZA arm (HR=0.861; 95% CI, 0.622–1.191; P =0.3655). No clinically meaningful between-arm differences in QLQ-C30 functioning and symptoms scales were observed (Table). No between-arm difference in TTD for worst pain by BPI-SF was observed. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, QoL was maintained with TALA + ENZA. These data confirm that QoL is not compromised when TALA is added to ENZA, for initial treatment of unselected men with mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT03395197 . QLQ-C30 Scale Estimated Mean Difference, TALA + ENZA – PBO + ENZA (95% CI) P Value Functioning GHS/QoL -2.2 (-4.3, -0.1) 0.0382 Physical -1.6 (-3.9, 0.7) 0.1663 Role -1.7 (-4.2, 0.9) 0.2009 Emotional -0.9 (-2.7, 1.0) 0.3620 Cognitive -0.9 (-3.0, 1.1) 0.3791 Social -0.9 (-2.9, 1.2) 0.4088 Symptoms Fatigue 2.4 (0.1, 4.7) 0.0437 Nausea + Vomiting 0.8 (-0.1, 1.6) 0.0723 Pain -0.8 (-3.3, 1.7) 0.5270 Positive values favor TALA + ENZA for GHS/QoL and functioning scales; negative values favor TALA + ENZA for symptoms scales.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".