Final patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations receiving initial treatment with talazoparib (TALA) + enzalutamide (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) + ENZA in the TALAPRO-2 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
11121 Background: The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study showed a statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival for TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA (HR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.33–0.61; P <0.0001) in men with HRR-deficient mCRPC. Prior PRO analyses (data cutoff: Oct 3, 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 27.1 mo) vs PBO + ENZA (median 19.3 mo; HR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.97; P =0.032). Here we report updated (data cutoff: Sep 3, 2024) final PROs for the HRR-deficient cohort. Methods: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline) and every 4 wks until wk 53, then every 8 wks 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 endpoints 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, ≥2 points for BPI-SF. Between-arm comparisons of TTD/TTDD were made via stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: At extended follow-up, 394/399 patients in the HRR-deficient cohort (n=197, both arms) had completed baseline + ≥1 follow-up PRO score. TALA + ENZA resulted in a numerically longer TTDD in GHS/QoL vs PBO + ENZA (HR=0.766; 95% CI, 0.555–1.057; P =0.1063; median, 34.2 vs 22.1 mo, respectively). HR for TTDD in disease-specific urinary symptoms was 0.684; 95% CI, 0.421–1.113; P =0.1247) for TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA. TTD in worst pain by BPI-SF favored TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA (HR=0.552; 95% CI, 0.325–0.937; P =0.0255). Differences in physical, role, emotional, cognitive functioning scores and pain favored TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA, but did not meet the clinically meaningful threshold (Table). Conclusions: With extended follow-up, treatment differences favoring TALA + ENZA vs PBO + ENZA were observed in some functioning and symptoms scales. Consistent with prior analyses, overall QoL was maintained in patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC receiving initial treatment with TALA + ENZA in TALAPRO-2. Clinical trial information: NCT03395197 . QLQ-C30 Scale Estimated Mean Difference, TALA + ENZA – PBO + ENZA (95% CI) P Value Functioning GHS/QoL 2.7 (-0.8, 6.2) 0.1294 Physical 5.3 (1.9, 8.7) 0.0022 Role 4.3 (0.0, 8.6) 0.0524 Emotional 4.9 (1.6, 8.2) 0.0038 Cognitive 5.5 (2.0, 9.1) 0.0024 Social 1.9 (-1.7, 5.4) 0.3005 Symptoms Fatigue -1.5 (-5.2, 2.3) 0.4448 Nausea + Vomiting 0.1 (-1.4, 1.6) 0.8936 Pain -8.5 (-12.3, -4.7) <0.0001 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".