Patient-reported Outcomes for Men with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Who Received Olaparib plus Abiraterone Versus Placebo plus Abiraterone in the Phase 3 PROpel Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The phase 3 PROpel study showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) with olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by mutation status for homologous recombination repair genes. Here we report patient-reported outcomes and results for other symptom-related endpoints. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo, both given with abiraterone acetate (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone. The primary endpoint was rPFS (at planned primary analysis; data cutoff July 30, 2021). Prespecified secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P]) and pain (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) (prespecified final analysis of overall survival; data cutoff October 12, 2022). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Between October 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomized to olaparib + abiraterone and 397 to placebo + abiraterone. There were no overall differences between the treatment arms in the least-squares mean change from baseline in FACT-P total score or subscales, or in BPI-SF scores for worst pain, pain severity, and pain interference. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In PROpel, there were no differences in HRQoL or pain scores reported by patients with mCRPC receiving olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone, suggesting that patients can derive a clinical benefit from olaparib + abiraterone while maintaining similar HRQoL in comparison with current standard-of-care treatment. The PROpel trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03732820.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".