Expert opinion on the management of anemia in prostate cancer patients receiving PARP inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is incurable, with tumors often relapsing after initial treatment and patients requiring subsequent lines of therapy. As the use of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs), with or without docetaxel, prior to the development of castration-resistant disease is increasing, the number of subsequent therapy options for mCRPC is limited.Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are one treatment option approved in Canada for patients with mCRPC and mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 or other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. PARP inhibitors are generally well-tolerated but are associated with high rates of anemia. This can be difficult to manage in mCRPC, as common disease and patient characteristics, as well as prior therapy, also contribute to an increased risk of anemia. Appropriate management of anemia is important for maintaining quality of life; however, there is a paucity of data and guidelines to inform clinicians on how to best prevent and manage anemia associated with PARP inhibitor use in mCRPC.This narrative review and expert opinion provides key strategies for managing anemia related to PARP inhibitor use in mCRPC through prevention, monitoring, and supportive care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".