Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31605196›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Managing lines of therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer: real-life snapshot from a multicenter cohort.

Mariaconsiglia Ferriero, Riccardo Mastroianni, Cosimo De Nunzio, Luca Cindolo, Fabio Calabrò, Giorgia Tema, Costantino Leonardo, Rocco Simone Flammia, Gabriele Tuderti, Umberto Anceschi and 8 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

18 authors.

Mariaconsiglia FerrieroDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy. marilia.ferriero@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5188-8001
Riccardo MastroianniDepartment of Urology, "La Sapienza" University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 33, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Cosimo De NunzioDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University "La Sapienza", Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Luca CindoloDepartment of Urology, S. Pio Da Pietrelcina Hospital, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 66054, Vasto, Italy.
Fabio CalabròDepartment of Medical Oncology, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Circonvallazione Gianicolense, 87, 00152, Rome, Italy.
Giorgia TemaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University "La Sapienza", Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Costantino LeonardoDepartment of Urology, "La Sapienza" University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 33, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Rocco Simone FlammiaDepartment of Urology, "La Sapienza" University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 33, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Gabriele TudertiDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
Umberto AnceschiDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
Aldo BrassettiDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
Silvana GiacintiDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University "La Sapienza", Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Salvatore GuaglianoneDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
Jamil GhahhariDepartment of Urology, "G.D'Annunzio" University, Via dei Vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Luigi SchipsDepartment of Urology, S. Pio Da Pietrelcina Hospital, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 66054, Vasto, Italy.
Andrea TubaroDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University "La Sapienza", Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Michele GallucciDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe SimoneDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide a snapshot of toxicities and oncologic outcomes of Abiraterone (AA) and Enzalutamide (EZ) in a chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) population from a longitudinal real-life multicenter cohort.

methodsWe prospectively collected data on chemo-naïve mCRPC patients treated with AA or EZ. Primary outcomes were PSA response, oncologic outcomes and toxicity profile. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare differences in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) between AA vs EZ and high- vs low-volume disease cohorts. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of PFS. Toxicity, PSA response rates and oncologic outcomes on second line were compared with those observed on first line.

resultsOut of 137 patients, 88 received AA, and 49 EZ. On first line, patients receiving EZ had significantly higher PSA response compared with AA (95.9% vs 67%, p < 0.001), comparable toxicity rate (10.2% vs 16.3%, p = 0.437) and PFS probabilities (p = 0.145). Baseline PSA and high-volume disease were predictors of lower PFS probabilities at univariable analysis (p = 0.027 and p = 0.007, respectively). Overall, 28 patients shifted to a second-line therapy (EZ or radiometabolic therapy). Toxicity and PSA response rates on second line were comparable to those observed on first line (11.1% vs 12.4%, p = 0.77; 73.1% vs 77.4%, p = 0.62, respectively); 2-year PFS, cancer-specific and overall survival probabilities were comparable to those displayed in first-line cohort (12.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.07; 85.7% vs 86.4%, p = 0.98; 71% vs 80.3%, p = 0.66, respectively).

conclusionsToxicity profile, PSA response rate and oncological outcomes were comparable between first-line and second-line courses in patients treated with either AA or EZ for mCRPC. Our findings showed the tolerability and oncological effectiveness, when feasible, of two lines of therapy other than chemotherapy.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAndrostenesBenzamidesCohort StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasm MetastasisNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantTreatment OutcomeabirateroneAndrostenesBenzamidesenzalutamideNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinAndrogen receptor targeted agentCastration-resistant prostate cancerHigh volume diseaseMetastatic diseaseSystemic therapy

Identifiers

PMID31605196

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.