Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888270›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2015

Comparative effectiveness of mitoxantrone plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel failure.

Angela K Green, Robert W Corty, William A Wood, Mathew Meeneghan, Katherine E Reeder-Hayes, Ethan Basch, Matthew I Milowsky, Stacie B Dusetzina

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Recent Advances in Prostate Cancer Treatment and Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela K GreenUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Angela.Green@unchealth.unc.edu.
Robert W CortyUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
William A WoodUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Mathew MeeneghanUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Katherine E Reeder-HayesUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Ethan BaschUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Matthew I MilowskyUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Stacie B DusetzinaUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC Predoc Training Progr in Bioinformatics/Comp BiologyT32GM067553 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ELSTON, TIMOTHY C · 2005 to 2019
$2.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM067553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMitoxantrone was approved for use in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) based on pain palliation without observed survival benefit in a small phase III trial in 1996. To re-evaluate for possible survival benefits in a larger contemporary sample and to demonstrate analytic uses of the newly available Project Data Sphere online resource, we used data from control arms of completed clinical trials to compare survival and toxicity among patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone. PATIENTS AND

methodsControl arm data from two phase III randomized control trials, SUN 1120 and TROPIC, were used to examine the efficacy of mitoxantrone plus prednisone (n = 305) versus prednisone alone (n = 257) among patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. Propensity score matching was used to balance patient characteristics between the separate trials, conditioned on age and key prognostic variables of survival. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary endpoints evaluated safety.

resultsMedian survival was similar among patients receiving mitoxantrone plus prednisone versus prednisone alone (385 days vs. 336 days; deceleration factor = 0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.12 to 0.22). Prevalence of several any-grade toxicity, including fatigue, back pain, and peripheral neuropathy, was increased among patients who received mitoxantrone.

conclusionThere was no significant survival benefit for mitoxantrone plus prednisone over prednisone alone among men with mCRPC after docetaxel therapy. This finding is consistent with prior studies showing no survival advantage with mitoxantrone in the predocetaxel setting. Furthermore, our data suggest that mitoxantrone may be associated with increased toxicity compared with prednisone alone.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDocetaxelDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansMaleMiddle AgedMitoxantronePrednisoneProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantSurvival AnalysisTaxoidsDocetaxelMitoxantronePrednisoneTaxoidsComparative effectiveness researchMitoxantronePostdocetaxelProject Data SphereProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID25888270
PMCPMC4425389
OpenAlexW2145486532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.