MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414886615 · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03961-8

Niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone for HRR-deficient metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial

2025· article· en· W4414886615 on OpenAlexaff
Gerhardt Attard, Neeraj Agarwal, Julie N. Graff, Shahneen Sandhu, Eleni Efstathiou, Mustafa Özgüroğlu, Andrea Juliana Gomes, Karina Vianna, Hong Luo, Geoffrey Gotto, Heather H. Cheng, Won Bae Kim, Carly R. Varela, Daneen Schaeffer, K. Krämer, Susan Li, Benoît Baron, Fei Shen, Suneel Mundle, Sharon McCarthy, David Olmos, Kim N., Dana E. Rathkopf

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAbiraterone acetateHazard ratioPrednisoneProstate cancerClinical endpointPlaceboConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) after relapse on hormone therapy is well established for patients with prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, but resistance often develops. We hypothesized that PARP inhibition within 6 months of starting androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) could be effective and improve radiographic progression-free survival when added to standard-of-care treatments. The double-blind AMPLITUDE trial evaluated combining niraparib, a potent and specific PARP inhibitor, with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) versus placebo and AAP in mCSPC with HRR gene alterations. Patients (n = 696) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio (348 per group). Median age was 68 years; 56% had BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations; 78% had high-volume metastases; and 16% had received docetaxel. The primary endpoint was met, with a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival observed first in the BRCA subgroup (median not reached at the time of analysis for the niraparib and AAP group versus 26 months for the AAP group; hazard ratio = 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.72; P < 0.0001) and then in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.80; P = 0.0001). The data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature (193/389 events) but favor niraparib (hazard ratio = 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.04); BRCA subgroup: hazard ratio = 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-1.11)). Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 75% in the niraparib and AAP group and 59% in the AAP group; most frequent in the niraparib and AAP group were anemia (29%), with 25% of patients requiring a blood transfusion, and hypertension (27%). There were 14 treatment-emergent adverse events leading to deaths in the niraparib group and seven in the placebo group. Combining niraparib with AAP significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCSPC harboring BRCA1/BRCA2 or other HRR gene alterations, suggesting clinical benefit with this combination for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04497844 .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207