ArticleBJUI compass2021
A novel prognostic model for Japanese patients with newly diagnosed bone-metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer.
Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Darolutamide in Japanese patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: Phase 3 ARASENS subgroup analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Trial
- Article
- A novel prognostic model for Japanese patients with newly diagnosed bone-metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the prognosis of newly diagnosed patients with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) and develop a novel prognostic model based on ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) risk classifications. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 578 newly diagnosed mHNPC patients initially treated with androgen deprivation therapy. We evaluated three clinical factors, namely, CHAARTED risk classifications (high-volume disease [HVD] vs low-volume disease [LVD]), Gleason scores (GS, 9-10 vs ≤8), and hemoglobin (Hb, ≤13.0 g/dL vs >13.0 g/dL), for their prognostic potential in predicting time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTC) and overall survival (OS) of mHNPC patients by multivariate analysis. Moreover, we developed a novel prognostic model that consisted of significant prognostic factors. Results: Of the entire cohort, the median TTC and OS values were 18.3 and 67.5 months, respectively. HVD, GS 9-10, and Hb ≤13.0 g/dL were independent poor prognostic factors for both TTC and OS. We developed a novel prognostic model which could stratify mHNPC patients into four risk groups according to the numbers of poor prognostic factors: group 1, LVD with low-risk (LVD patients without GS 9-10 and Hb ≤13.0 g/dL); group 2, LVD with high-risk (LVD patients with GS 9-10, Hb ≤13.0 g/dL, or both); group 3, HVD with low-risk (HVD patients without GS 9-10 with or without Hb ≤13.0 g/dL); and group 4, HVD with high-risk (HVD patients with GS 9-10 with or without Hb ≤13.0 g/dL). The median TTC and OS of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 124.8, 36.4, 17.9, and 11.2 months, and 117.2, 94.2, 67.9, and 46.2 months, respectively. A significant difference in TCC and OS was found between all groups. Conclusion: We developed a prognostic model for mHNPC patients that consisted of CHAARTED risk classifications, GS, and Hb. Our prognostic model could significantly stratify the prognosis of patients with LVD and HVD into two groups each. This model might be a good reference for shared decision making between patients and physicians on the initial treatment for mHNPC.
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.