ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022
Effects of etoposide combined with cisplatin on prognosis of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who failed castration treatment.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the influences of etoposide combined with cisplatin on prognosis of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who failed castration treatment.
methodsA total of 100 patients with metastatic CRPC who failed castration treatment in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into a control group (n=59) treated with docetaxel combined with prednisone and an experimental group (n=41) treated with etoposide combined with cisplatin (EP). The change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was adopted as the evaluation criterion for efficacy, by which the total clinical effective rate of patients was calculated. The neurologic rating scale (NRS) was adopted to evaluate the pain of patients, and the incidence of adverse reactions was compared between the two groups. Cox regression was carried out to analyze independent prognostic factors impacting 3-year survival.
resultsThe experimental group showed a significantly better clinical improvement than the control group (P<0.05). According to further analysis, the experimental group had a significantly higher clinical efficacy rate than the control group (P<0.05). Life quality scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group (all P<0.05). The two groups were not greatly different in bone pain, or incidence of adverse reactions (both P>0.05). The median survival time of the control group was 15.9 months, while that of the experimental group was 18 months, and the control group experienced a greatly shorter median survival time than the experimental group (P=0.040). According to Cox regression analysis, Gleason score, clinical stage, and metastasis were independent factors impacting the patients' 3-year prognosis (all P<0.05).
conclusionEP regimen can strongly improve the 3-year survival rate of patients, without increasing adverse reactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35422924PMC8991174W4225819657What 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.