SynthesisClinical drug investigation2020
Systemic Treatment for Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Evaluating Efficacy and Safety in Specific Sub-Groups of Patients.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Comparative analysis of real-world data of frequent treatment sequences in metastatic prostate cancer.Current urology · 2024Article
- Review
- Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Treating Prostate Cancer by Antibody-Drug Conjugates.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Depression and prostate cancer: implications for urologists and oncologists.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Current Perspective on the Evolving Therapeutic Landscape.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSeveral systemic treatments are available for metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) including docetaxel (D), abiraterone and prednisone (A + P) and new anti-androgens (NA). In our study we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing efficacy outcomes (survival and radiological-free survival), safety and survival on specific subgroups of patients.
methodsOutcomes of interest were: (i) Risk of death, biochemical and radiological progression among all patients. (ii) Risk of death according to different pathological/clinical features. (iii) Evaluation of the relative risk (RR) and risk difference of serious toxicity defined as adverse events (AEs) with grade ≥ 3 specific AEs. Hazard ratios (HRs) and RR were measures adopted for endpoints 1-3.
resultsOverall, eight randomized trials were included in meta-analysis for a total of 9987 patients. Administration of D, A + P and NA resulted in improved overall survival (OS) and radiological progression-free survival (rPFS). Survival benefit was not confirmed in patients receiving NA and previously exposed to docetaxel (HR 0.948, 95% CI 0.671-1.338). Patients with visceral metastases and high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) did not benefit from NA treatment, while it seems that patients with low Gleason score do not benefit from A + P. NA showed the more favorable safety profile.
conclusionNA may not provide survival benefit when adopted subsequently or in concomitant to D. Specific subgroups of patients may benefit more from A + P, D or NA. Safety profiles significantly differ among agents evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.