Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065303›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Response and Toxicity to the Second Course of 3 Cycles of

Sazan Rasul, Tim Wollenweber, Lucia Zisser, Elisabeth Kretschmer-Chott, Bernhard Grubmüller, Gero Kramer, Shahrokh F Shariat, Harald Eidherr, Markus Mitterhauser, Chrysoula Vraka and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Joint EANM/SNMMI procedure guideline for the use ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Guideline
  2. The Prostate · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Sazan RasulDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2898-3232
Tim WollenweberDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Lucia ZisserDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9454-2860
Elisabeth Kretschmer-ChottDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard GrubmüllerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Gero KramerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Harald EidherrDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Markus MitterhauserDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3173-5272
Chrysoula VrakaDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2065-6093
Werner LangstegerDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Marcus HackerDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4222-4083
Alexander R HaugDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8308-6174

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated the response rate and degree of toxicity of a second course of three cycles of [

methodsForty-three men (71.5 ± 6.6 years, median PSA 40.8 (0.87-1358 µg/L)) were studied. The response was based on the PSA level 4 weeks after the third cycle. The laboratory parameters before and one month after the last cycle were compared. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and the Cox regression model was performed to find predictors of survival.

resultsTwenty-six patients (60.5%) exhibited a PSA reduction (median PSA declined from 40.8 to 20.2, range 0.6-1926 µg/L,

conclusionA further intensive PSMA-RLT course is well tolerated in mCRPC patients and associated with promising response rates and OS.

Indexed as

177Lu-PSMAmCRPCprostate cancerPSAPSMA-RLT

Identifiers

PMID34065303
PMCPMC8160614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.