Improved Survival with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 EMBARK trial, enzalutamide plus leuprolide and enzalutamide monotherapy were associated with longer metastasis-free survival than leuprolide alone among patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. The final analysis of overall survival has not been reported. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive enzalutamide plus leuprolide (the combination group), leuprolide alone (the leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (the monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, assessed in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Overall survival was an alpha-controlled, key secondary end point. Updated results for prespecified secondary end points, including the time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy and the time to the first symptomatic skeletal event, were summarized descriptively, as was progression-free survival with the first subsequent therapy, an exploratory end point. RESULTS: The 8-year overall survival was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.9 to 83.1) in the combination group and 69.5% (95% CI, 64.0 to 74.3) in the leuprolide-alone group; the hazard ratio for death was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80; P<0.001). The 8-year overall survival with monotherapy was 73.1% (95% CI, 67.6 to 77.9), which did not differ significantly from that with leuprolide alone (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10; P = 0.19). In the descriptive updates for prespecified secondary end points, results were similar to those previously reported. Safety findings were consistent with those in the primary analysis of metastasis-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of enzalutamide and leuprolide than with leuprolide alone among patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence. Enzalutamide monotherapy was not superior to leuprolide alone in the analysis of overall survival. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".