MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416866070 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-25-3327

A Computational Pathology Model to Predict Docetaxel Benefit in Localized High-Risk and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4416866070 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Medina, Naoto Tokuyama, Kamal Hammouda, Tilak Pathak, Tuomas Mirtti, Pingfu Fu, Shilpa Gupta, Priti Lal, Howard M. Sandler, Rohann Correa, Susan Chafe, Amit Shah, Jason A. Efstathiou, Karen E. Hoffman, Michael Straza, M.A. Hallman, Richard C. Jordan, Stephanie L. Pugh, Christopher J. Sweeney, Anant Madabhushi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of DefenseNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsDocetaxelProstate cancerAndrogen receptorProstateClinical trialCancerAndrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Docetaxel improves survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and high-risk localized disease, but benefits vary substantially among patients. Without predictive biomarkers, clinicians cannot identify patients who will benefit, exposing many to unnecessary toxicity. We developed and validated an artificial intelligence-based pathology image classifier (APIC) to predict docetaxel benefit. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained biopsy specimens from two phase 3 trials: CHAARTED (286/790 patients with mHSPC) and NRG/RTOG 0521 (350/563 patients with high-risk localized disease). APIC used features capturing tumor-immune spatial interactions and nuclear heterogeneity. We evaluated the predictive value of APIC for docetaxel benefit on overall survival (OS) and castration resistance using Cox proportional hazards with interaction terms. RESULTS: In CHAARTED, APIC-positive patients (56.7%) showed significant OS improvement with docetaxel [HR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.85; P = 0.008] and delayed castration resistance (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71; P < 0.001), whereas APIC-negative patients (43.3%) showed no benefit (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.71-2.44; P = 0.39). Treatment-APIC interactions were significant (P = 0.022 and P = 0.031). In NRG/RTOG 0521, APIC-positive patients (44.7%) demonstrated survival benefit (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92; P = 0.023), whereas APIC-negative patients (55.3%) showed no benefit. Treatment-APIC interaction was significant (P = 0.024). Predictive value remained significant after adjusting for clinical variables. Limitations include retrospective analysis and need for prospective validation. CONCLUSIONS: APIC predicts docetaxel benefit in both metastatic and localized prostate cancers, independent of clinical factors. Validation in triplet therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors is needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207