MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of circulating immune and metabolic markers with clinical outcomes in the ENZAMET trial (ANZUP 1304).

2025· article· en· W4410811860 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa G. Horvath, Hui‐Ming Lin, Ian D. Davis, Andrew Martin, Nicole Yeung, Neil Portman, Anthony M. Joshua, Margaret McJannett, Vinod Vijay Subhash, Sonia Yip, Scott North, Kim N., Martin R. Stockler, Christopher Sweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersCancer Council Australia
KeywordsMedicineImmune systemInternal medicineOncologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5093 Background: ENZAMET showed that enzalutamide (ENZ) significantly improves overall survival (OS) of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) compared to conventional non-steroidal anti-androgen (NSAA). However, intrinsic and acquired resistance to ENZ are ongoing problems. In the CHAARTED mHSPC cohort, elevated circulating IL8 and IGFBP1, and a low IGF1:IGFBP1 ratio, were associated with shorter OS and shorter time to castration-resistance. The aim of this study was to confirm the prognostic association of IL8, IGFBP1, and IGF1:IGFBP1 in mHSPC, and also explore the relationship of a set of immune markers with ENZ treatment by post-hoc analysis of ENZAMET. Methods: Baseline plasma levels of IL8, IGF1, IGFBP1, C-reactive protein (CRP), and 14 other cytokines were profiled in 852 participants of ENZAMET (ENZ n=420; NSAA n=432) using Milliplex antibody assays (Merck). The association of these markers with OS and clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) was assessed by Cox regression. Results: In the whole study cohort, we confirmed that high IGFBP1 and IL8, and low IGF1:IGFBP1 were significantly associated with shorter OS and shorter cPFS (p≤0.029). High CRP, CXCL16, IL6, MIC1 and YKL40, and low IL28A were also associated with shorter OS (p≤0.015). These markers were independently associated with OS in multivariable analysis with treatment arm, volume of disease, concurrent docetaxel, and presence of visceral metastases (p≤0.047, Table). None of these markers were predictive of ENZ response. In subgroup analyses by treatment arm, IGFBP1 and IGF1:IGFBP1 were prognostic in the ENZ arm (OS p≤0.042, cPFS p≤0.02) but not in NSAA (OS p=0.08, cPFS p≥0.2). IL8 was prognostic in the NSAA arm (OS p=0.02, cPFS p=0.006) but not in ENZ (OS p=0.5, cPFS p=0.5). MIC1 was the only marker that was prognostic in both treatment arms (OS & cPFS p≤0.002). Conclusions: These data validate IL8, IGFBP1, and IGF1:IGFBP1 as prognostic biomarkers in mHSPC. Furthermore, pro-inflammatory and macrophage-associated cytokines are associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02446405 . Hazard ratio (HR) for OS from univariable analyses and multivariable analyses with clinical variables. Variable (log2) HR (95% CI) from univariable analysis P-value HR (95% CI) from multivariable analysis with clinical variables P-value IL8 1.10 (1.01-1.19) 0.029 1.09 (1.00-1.18) 0.047 IGFBP1 1.12 (1.04-1.21) 0.004 1.10 (1.02-1.18) 0.018 IGF1/IGFBP1 0.94 (0.90-0.98) 0.008 0.94 (0.90-0.98) 0.004 CXCL16 1.43 (1.10-1.84) 0.007 1.31 (1.04-1.65) 0.020 CRP 1.10 (1.05-1.16) <0.001 1.08 (1.03-1.14) 0.002 IL6 1.13 (1.07-1.20) <0.001 1.10 (1.04-1.17) 0.001 MIC1 1.39 (1.23-1.58) <0.001 1.23 (1.08-1.40) 0.002 YKL40 1.19 (1.08-1.32) <0.001 1.17 (1.06-1.29) 0.001 IL28A 0.93 (0.88-0.99) 0.015 0.91 (0.86-0.97) 0.002

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicDiabetes and associated disorders→French-language works237,207→