Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27864015›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2017

Prediction of overall survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: development of a prognostic model through a crowdsourced challenge with open clinical trial data.

Justin Guinney, Tao Wang, Teemu D Laajala, Kimberly Kanigel Winner, J Christopher Bare, Elias Chaibub Neto, Suleiman A Khan, Gopal Peddinti, Antti Airola, Tapio Pahikkala and 18 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. SubclonalBlood · 2018
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Long-Term Prognostic Value of AFP and PIVKA-II in HCC After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Optimal linear ensemble of binary classifiers.Bioinformatics advances · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The Future of Precision Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  17. External Validation of a Prognostic Model of Overall Survival in Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors at 16 institutions in 2 countries.

Justin GuinneySage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tao WangQuantitative Biomedical Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Center for the Genetics of Host Defense, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Teemu D LaajalaDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Kimberly Kanigel WinnerDepartment of Pharmacology and Computational Biosciences Program, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
J Christopher BareSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elias Chaibub NetoSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Suleiman A KhanInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Gopal PeddintiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti AirolaDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tapio PahikkalaDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tuomas MirttiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Pathology (HUSLAB), Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Thomas YuSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brian M BotSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Liji ShenSanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
Kald AbdallahAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Thea NormanSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen FriendSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gustavo StolovitzkyIBM T J Watson Research Center, IBM, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.
Howard SouleProstate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Christopher J SweeneyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Charles J RyanGenitourinary Medical Oncology Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Howard I ScherGenitourinary Oncology Services, Department of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Oliver SartorTulane Cancer Center, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Yang XieQuantitative Biomedical Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; The Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Lyda Hill Department of Bioinformatics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Tero AittokallioDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Fang Liz ZhouSanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
James C CostelloDepartment of Pharmacology and Computational Biosciences Program, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: james.costello@ucdenver.edu.
Prostate Cancer Challenge DREAM Community
Sage Bionetworks · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USSanofi (United States) · USInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland · FIUniversity of Turku · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FIAstraZeneca (United States) · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHarvard University · USIBM (United States) · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USProstate Cancer Foundation · USTulane University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Colorado Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Computational Bioscience Program Training GrantT15LM009451 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Katherina Kechris-Mays, Arjun Krishnan · 2007 to 2026
$11.7M
Predicting Adjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Lung CancerR01CA152301 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI XIE, YANG · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152301NLM NIH HHS T15 LM009451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImprovements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease.

methodsData from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated with docetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone.

findings50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0·791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0·743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3·32, 95% CI 2·39-4·62, p<0·0001; reference model: 2·56, 1·85-3·53, p<0·0001). The new model was validated further on the ENTHUSE M1 cohort with similarly high performance (iAUC 0·768). Meta-analysis across all methods confirmed previously identified predictive clinical variables and revealed aspartate aminotransferase as an important, albeit previously under-reported, prognostic biomarker.

interpretationNovel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer.

fundingSanofi US Services, Project Data Sphere.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalNomogramsAdolescentAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBayes TheoremCrowdsourcingDocetaxelFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrednisonePrognosisDocetaxelPrednisoneTaxoids

Identifiers

PMID27864015
PMCPMC5217180
OpenAlexW2552908002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.