***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND Enzalutamide ( formerly called MDV3100 ) targets multiple steps in the and rogen-receptor-signaling pathway , the major driver of prostate-cancer growth . We aim ed to evaluate whether enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy . METHODS In our phase 3 , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial , we stratified 1199 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score and pain intensity . We r and omly assigned them , in a 2:1 ratio , to receive oral enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg per day ( 800 patients ) or placebo ( 399 patients ) . The primary end point was overall survival . RESULTS The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis at the time of 520 deaths . The median overall survival was 18.4 months ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 17.3 to not yet reached ) in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months ( 95 % CI , 11.3 to 15.8 ) in the placebo group ( hazard ratio for death in the enzalutamide group , 0.63 ; 95 % CI , 0.53 to 0.75 ; P<0.001 ) . The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was shown with respect to all secondary end points : the proportion of patients with a reduction in the prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) level by 50 % or more ( 54 % vs. 2 % , P<0.001 ) , the soft-tissue response rate ( 29 % vs. 4 % , P<0.001 ) , the quality -of-life response rate ( 43 % vs. 18 % , P<0.001 ) , the time to PSA progression ( 8.3 vs. 3.0 months ; hazard ratio , 0.25 ; P<0.001 ) , radiographic progression-free survival ( 8.3 vs. 2.9 months ; hazard ratio , 0.40 ; P<0.001 ) , and the time to the first skeletal-related event ( 16.7 vs. 13.3 months ; hazard ratio , 0.69 ; P<0.001 ) . Rates of fatigue , diarrhea , and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group . Seizures were reported in five patients ( 0.6 % ) receiving enzalutamide . CONCLUSIONS Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy . ( Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma Global Development ; AFFIRM Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00974311 . ) While programmed cell death 1 ( PD-1 ) inhibitors have shown clear anti-tumor efficacy in several solid tumors , prior results in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer ( mCRPC ) showed no evidence of activity . Here we report unexpected antitumor activity seen in mCRPC patients treated with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab . Patients with evidence of progression on enzalutamide were treated with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses ; pembrolizumab was added to st and ard dose enzalutamide . Three of the first ten patients enrolled in this ongoing phase II trial experienced rapid prostate specific antigen ( PSA ) reductions to ≤ 0.2 ng/ml . Two of these three patients had measurable disease upon study entry ; both achieved a partial response . There were three patients with significant immune-related adverse events . One had grade 2 myositis , one had grade 3 hypothyroidism , and one had grade 2 hypothyroidism . None of these patients had a response . Two of the three responders had a baseline tumor biopsy . Immunohistochemistry from those biopsies showed the presence of CD3 + , CD8 + , and CD163 + leukocyte infiltrates and PD-L1 expression . Genetic analysis of the two responders revealed markers of microsatellite instability in one . The surprising and robust responses seen in this study should lead to re-examination of PD-1 inhibition in prostate cancer R and omised controlled trials and population -based observational research : partners in the evolution of medical OBJECTIVE : To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features : appropriate for assessing both r and omised and non-r and omised studies ; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting , internal validity ( bias and confounding ) and power , but also for external validity . DESIGN : A pilot version was first developed , based on epidemiological principles , review s , and existing checklists for r and omised studies . Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced review ers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 r and omised and 10 non-r and omised studies . Using different raters , the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency ( Kuder-Richardson 20 ) , test-retest and inter-rater reliability ( Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test ; kappa statistics ) , criterion validity , and respondent burden . MAIN RESULTS : The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version . The Quality Index had high internal consistency ( KR-20 : 0.89 ) as did the subscales apart from external validity ( KR-20 : 0.54 ) . Test-retest ( r 0.88 ) and inter-rater ( r 0.75 ) reliability of the Quality Index were good . Reliability of the subscales varied from good ( bias ) to poor ( external validity ) . The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing , established instrument for assessing r and omised studies ( r 0.90 ) . There was little difference between its performance with non-r and omised and with r and omised studies . Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper ( range 10 to 45 minutes ) . CONCLUSIONS : This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the method ological quality not only of r and omised controlled trials but also non-r and omised studies . It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper , alerting review ers to its particular method ological strengths and weaknesses . Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity Purpose : To evaluate the efficacy , safety , biomarkers , and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab , a fully human , monoclonal antibody against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor , combined with mitoxantrone and prednisone ( MP ) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer ( CRPC ) . Experimental Design : This double-blinded phase II study r and omized ( 1:1:1 ) patients with progressive , taxane-refractory CRPC to receive MP ( 12 mg/m2 i.v . day 1 , 5 mg twice a day orally days 1–21 , respectively ) plus 15 mg/kg rilotumumab , 7.5 mg/kg rilotumumab , or placebo ( i.v . day 1 ) every 3 weeks . The primary endpoint was overall survival ( OS ) . Results : One hundred and forty-four patients were r and omized .  Median OS was 12.2 versus 11.1 months [ HR , 1.10 ; 80 % confidence interval ( CI ) , 0.82–1.48 ] in the combined rilotumumab versus control arms . Median progression-free survival was 3.0 versus 2.9 months ( HR , 1.02 ; 80 % CI , 0.79–1.31 ) . Treatment appeared well tolerated with peripheral edema ( 24 % vs. 8 % ) being more common with rilotumumab . A trend toward unfavorable OS was observed in patients with high tumor MET expression regardless of treatment . Soluble MET levels increased in all treatment arms . Total HGF levels increased in the rilotumumab arms . Rilotumumab showed linear pharmacokinetics when co-administered with MP . Conclusions : Rilotumumab plus MP had manageable toxicities and showed no efficacy improvements in this estimation study . High tumor MET expression may identify patients with CRPC with poorer prognosis . Clin Cancer Res ; 19(1 ) ; 215–24 . © 2012 AACR BACKGROUND Mitoxantrone plus prednisone reduces pain and improves the quality of life in men with advanced , hormone-refractory prostate cancer , but it does not improve survival . We compared such treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone in men with this disease . METHODS From March 2000 through June 2002 , 1006 men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer received 5 mg of prednisone twice daily  and were r and omly assigned to receive 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter of body-surface area every three weeks , 75 mg of docetaxel per square meter every three weeks , or 30 mg of docetaxel per square meter weekly for five of every six weeks . The primary end point was overall survival . Secondary end points were pain , prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) levels , and the quality of life . All statistical comparisons were against mitoxantrone . RESULTS As compared with the men in the mitoxantrone group , men in the group given docetaxel every three weeks had a hazard ratio for death of 0.76 ( 95 percent confidence interval , 0.62 to 0.94 ; P=0.009 by the stratified log-rank test ) and those given weekly docetaxel had a hazard ratio for death of 0.91 ( 95 percent confidence interval , 0.75 to 1.11 ; P=0.36 ) . The median survival was 16.5 months in the mitoxantrone group , 18.9 months in the group given docetaxel every 3 weeks , and 17.4 months in the group given weekly docetaxel . Among these three groups , 32 percent , 45 percent , and 48 percent of men , respectively , had at least a 50 percent decrease in the serum PSA level ( P<0.001 for both comparisons with mitoxantrone ) ; 22 percent , 35 percent ( P=0.01 ) , and 31 percent ( P=0.08 ) had predefined reductions in pain ; and 13 percent , 22 percent ( P=0.009 ) , and 23 percent ( P=0.005 ) had improvements in the quality of life . Adverse events were also more common in the groups that received docetaxel . CONCLUSIONS When given with prednisone , treatment with docetaxel every three weeks led to superior survival and improved rates of response in terms of pain , serum PSA level , and quality of life , as compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone BACKGROUND In the AFFIRM trial of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression with docetaxel treatment , enzalutamide significantly increased overall survival compared with placebo . Here we present the prospect ively defined analyses of some secondary endpoints , including occurrence of skeletal-related events , measures of pain control , and patient-reported health-related quality of life ( HRQoL ) . METHODS In this phase 3 , double-blind trial , patients were r and omly assigned ( 2:1 ) to receive enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo orally , stratified by ECOG baseline performance status ( 0 or 1 vs 2 ) and mean pain score ( Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [ BPI-SF ] question 3 worst pain , score ≤3 vs ≥4 ) . Secondary endpoints were time to first skeletal-related event ( defined as radiation therapy or surgery to bone ) ; change from baseline to week 13 in pain severity and interference ; pain palliation and progression at week 13 ; time to pain progression ; overall improvement in HRQoL ; improvements in HRQoL domains ; and time to HRQoL deterioration . Analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population for each endpoint . AFFIRM is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00974311 . FINDINGS Median time to first skeletal-related event in the enzalutamide ( n=800 ) and placebo ( n=399 ) groups was 16·7 months ( 95 % CI 14·6 to 19·1 ) and 13·3 months ( 95 % CI 9·9 to not yet reached ) , respectively ( hazard ratio [ HR ] 0·69 [ 95 % CI 0·57 - 0·84 ] ; p=0·0001 ) . Pain progression at week 13 occurred in 174 ( 28 % ) of 625 evaluable patients in the enzalutamide group versus 101 ( 39 % ) of 259 patients in the placebo group ( difference -11·2 % , 95 % CI -18·1 to -4·3 ; p=0·0018 ) . Median time to pain progression was not yet reached in the enzalutamide group ( 95 % CI not yet reached to not yet reached ) versus 13·8 ( 13·8 to not yet reached ) months in the placebo group ( HR 0·56 [ 95 % 
    Output:
    
Overall , there is a growing body of evidence for post-docetaxel treatment options available in patients with mCRPC .