Postprogression Survival of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer who Received Darolutamide or Placebo in Combination with Docetaxel and Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3 ARASENS Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and delayed time to disease progression versus docetaxel + ADT in ARASENS (NCT02799602). We report data on subsequent antineoplastic therapies received and associated OS after discontinuation of the study treatment. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to darolutamide 600 mg orally twice daily or placebo, both with docetaxel + ADT. After treatment discontinuation, patients entered follow-up periods during which information on subsequent therapies and survival was collected. Postprogression OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method as the time from initiation of first subsequent therapy to death and was compared in multivariable Cox regression analyses. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1305 patients treated, 315/651 who received darolutamide and 495/654 who received placebo entered follow-up, and 57% and 76% of these patients, respectively, received subsequent therapy. In the darolutamide group, first subsequent therapy was either an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI; 63%) or a taxane (29%), and corresponding postprogression median OS was similar (13 vs 11 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-3.09). In the placebo group, first subsequent therapy was an ARPI in 78% and a taxane in 19% of cases, with worse OS for the taxane versus ARPI subgroup (14 vs 23 mo; HR 3.18, 95% CI 1.56-6.50). The main limitation of these analyses is their post hoc nature. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For ARPI-naïve patients who did not receive darolutamide in ARASENS, postprogression survival was longer with subsequent ARPI versus taxane treatment, but OS remained shorter in comparison to the darolutamide group. Decisions on postprogression therapy should consider disease volume and drugs with different mechanisms of action.
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) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".