Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30326032›Full record

SynthesisJAMA oncology2019

Association of Gleason Grade With Androgen Deprivation Therapy Duration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

Amar U Kishan, Xiaoyan Wang, Wendy Seiferheld, Laurence Collette, Kiri A Sandler, Howard M Sandler, Michel Bolla, Philippe Maingon, Theo De Reijke, Gerald E Hanks and 8 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Gleason pattern 5 is associated with an increased risk for metastasis following androgen deprivation therapy and radiation: An analysis of RTOG 9202 and 9902.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2019
    Trial
  4. The Current Therapeutic Landscape for Metastatic Prostate Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Insights into the risk of fatal AEs with ICIs.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Xiaoyan WangDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Wendy SeiferheldNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Laurence ColletteEuropean Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Kiri A SandlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Howard M SandlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, California.
Michel BollaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Philippe MaingonCentre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, Sorbonne Université Paris, Paris, France.
Theo De ReijkeAmsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gerald E HanksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Nicholas G NickolsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Matthew RettigDivision of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Alexandra DrakakiDivision of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Robert E ReiterDepartment of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Patrick A KupelianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Michael L SteinbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Christopher R KingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.

Funding

UCLA Clinical Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001881 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ARLEEN F. BROWN, ARASH NAEIM · 2016 to 2026
$118.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (RT). Whether this benefit differs between patients with Gleason grade group (GG) 4 (formerly Gleason score 8) and GG 5 (formerly Gleason score 9-10) disease remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the effectiveness of ADT duration varies between patients with GG 4 vs GG 5 PCa. Design, Setting, and Participants: Traditional and network individual patient data meta-analyses of 992 patients (593 GG 4 and 399 GG 5) who were enrolled in 6 randomized clinical trials were carried out. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to obtain hazard ratio (HR) estimates of ADT duration effects on overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Cause-specific competing risk models were used to estimate HRs for cancer-specific survival (CSS). The interaction of ADT with GS was incorporated into the multivariable models. Traditional and network meta-analysis frameworks were used to compare outcomes of patients treated with RT alone, short-term ADT (STADT), long-term ADT (LTADT), and lifelong ADT. Results: Five hundred ninety-three male patients (mean age, 70 years; range, 43-88 years) with GG 4 and 399 with GG 5 were identified. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Among GG 4 patients, LTADT and STADT improved OS over RT alone (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.70 and HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93, respectively; P = .03 for both), whereas lifelong ADT did not (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P = .44). Among GG 5 patients, lifelong ADT improved OS (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P = .04), whereas neither LTADT nor STADT did (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44 and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69-1.87; P = .45 and P = .64, respectively). Among all patients, and among those receiving STADT, GG 5 patients had inferior OS compared with GG 4 patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.47 and HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88, respectively; P = .02). There was no significant OS difference between GG 5 and GG 4 patients receiving LTADT or lifelong ADT (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.89-1.65 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.37; P = .23 and P = .52, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: These data suggest that prolonged durations of ADT improve survival outcomes in both GG 4 disease and GG 5 disease, albeit with different optimal durations. Strategies to maintain the efficacy of ADT while minimizing its duration (potentially with enhanced potency agents) should be investigated.

Indexed as

Androgen AntagonistsProstatic NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ProgressionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisProgression-Free SurvivalRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsAndrogen Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID30326032
PMCPMC6440243

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.