Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34638435›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Treatment Pattern and Outcomes with Systemic Therapy in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the Real-World Patients in the United States.

Umang Swami, Jennifer Anne Sinnott, Benjamin Haaland, Nicolas Sayegh, Taylor Ryan McFarland, Nishita Tripathi, Benjamin L Maughan, Nityam Rathi, Deepika Sirohi, Roberto Nussenzveig and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Umang SwamiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3518-0411
Jennifer Anne SinnottDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Benjamin HaalandDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Nicolas SayeghDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1924-8148
Taylor Ryan McFarlandDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Nishita TripathiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Benjamin L MaughanDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Nityam RathiDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Deepika SirohiDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah and ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Roberto NussenzveigDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Manish KohliDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9735-6614
Sumanta K PalDepartment of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA.
Neeraj AgarwalDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1076-0428
University of Utah · USCity of Hope · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth novel hormonal therapies and docetaxel are approved for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC; in castration sensitive or refractory settings). Present knowledge gaps include lack of real-world data on treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed mPC, and comparative effectiveness of novel hormonal therapies (NHT) versus docetaxel after treatment with a prior NHT.

methodsHerein we extracted patient-level data from a large real-world database of patients with mPC in United States. Utilization of NHT or docetaxel for mPC and comparative effectiveness of an alternate NHT versus docetaxel after one prior NHT was evaluated. Comparative effectiveness was examined via Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score matching weights. Each patient's propensity for treatment was modeled via random forest based on 22 factors potentially driving treatment selection.

resultsThe majority of patients (54%) received only androgen deprivation therapy for mPC. In patients treated with an NHT, alternate NHT was the most common next therapy and was associated with improved median overall survival over docetaxel (abiraterone followed by docetaxel vs. enzalutamide (8.7 vs. 15.6 months; adjusted hazards ratio; aHR 1.32;

Indexed as

abirateronecomparative effectivenessdocetaxelenzalutamidemetastatic prostate cancernovel hormonal therapiesreal-world treatment pattern

Identifiers

PMID34638435
PMCPMC8508241
OpenAlexW3204222880

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.