MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes with darolutamide in the phase 3 ARANOTE trial.

2025· article· en· W4410814329 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia K. Morgans, Kunhi Parambath Haresh, Mindaugas Jievaltas, David Olmos, Neal D. Shore, Egils Vjaters, Nianzeng Xing, Ateesha F. Mohamed, Natasha Littleton, Shankar Srinivasan, Frank Verholen, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Health related quality of lifeOncologyGerontologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5004 Background: Effective and well tolerated treatments to maintain HRQoL are essential for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Darolutamide (DARO) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly reduced the risk of radiological progression or death (primary endpoint) by 46% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.71; P <0.0001) vs placebo (PBO) + ADT in ARANOTE (NCT04736199). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was low and similar to PBO, with fewer study drug discontinuations due to AEs in the DARO vs PBO group (6.1% vs 9.0%). We report HRQoL and pain outcomes in ARANOTE. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to DARO 600 mg twice daily or PBO, with ADT. HRQoL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P). Deterioration in FACT-P total score by ≥10 points was a prespecified exploratory endpoint; deteriorations in FACT-P subscales by ≥3 points were analyzed post hoc . Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form (BPI-SF), including the pain severity and pain interference subscales. Pain progression (secondary endpoint) was defined as an increase of ≥2 points in BPI-SF worst pain score (WPS) from nadir observed at 2 consecutive evaluations ≥4 weeks apart or initiation of opioid use for ≥7 consecutive days. Association of HRQoL and pain progression with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was assessed post hoc . HRs and 95% CIs were calculated using a Cox regression model, stratified by visceral disease (present vs absent) and prior local therapy (yes vs no) for FACT-P total score and pain progression, unstratified for FACT-P and BPI-SF subscales and association with PSA. Results: DARO extended time to deterioration in FACT-P total score (overall well-being) by 5.1 months vs PBO: median 16.6 vs 11.5 months; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.93. The treatment benefit of DARO in FACT-P total score was strongly driven by longer time to deterioration in the subscales of social/family well-being (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.98), functional well-being (0.78, 0.63–0.96), and urinary symptoms (0.78, 0.61–0.99). Additionally, DARO extended time to pain progression vs PBO: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54–0.96. In patients treated with DARO, achievement of PSA response <0.2 ng/mL at any time was associated with longer time to deterioration in FACT-P total score and longer time to pain progression vs detectable PSA response (≥0.2 ng/mL) at any time. Conclusions: To our knowledge, DARO is the first and only androgen receptor inhibitor to demonstrate clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of important patient-relevant HRQoL outcomes vs PBO in men with mHSPC. Patients treated with DARO had improvements in overall well-being (FACT-P total score), social/family well-being, functional well-being, urinary symptoms, and pain. Combined with the efficacy and safety profile, these findings suggest that DARO also confers a positive impact on HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT04736199 .

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.418 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→