Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36967752›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023

Comparative efficacy of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for treating prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Xiangyu Chen, Qihua Wang, Yang Pan, Shangren Wang, Yuezheng Li, Hao Zhang, Mingming Xu, Hang Zhou, Xiaoqiang Liu

Open access · goldFull text readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiangyu ChenDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Qihua WangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yang PanDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Shangren WangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yuezheng LiDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hao ZhangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Mingming XuDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hang ZhouDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xiaoqiang LiuDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to December 2022 to identify randomized controlled studies associated with SGARIs. We use Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2 for data analysis, hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: This meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 9488 patients. In mHSPC, enzalutamide and darolutamide had a positive effect on overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82), but we did not find a difference in their efficacy to improve OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.75-1.89). Also in nmCRPC, enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide were beneficial for metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.41). Compared to darolutamide, enzalutamide (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) and apalutamide (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) prolonged MFS, but there was no difference in efficacy between enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.28). Finally in mCRPC, there was no significant difference in indirect effects on OS between pre- and post-chemotherapy enzalutamide (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). However, using enzalutamide before chemotherapy to improve radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was a better option (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.62-2.73). Conclusion: The SGARIs used in each trial were beneficial for the primary endpoint in the study. Firstly there was no significant difference in the effect of enzalutamide and darolutamide in improving OS in patients with mHSPC. Secondly improving MFS in patients with nmCRPC was best achieved with enzalutamide and apalutamide. In addition both pre- and post-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide was beneficial for OS in mCRPC patients, but for improving rPFS pre-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide should be preferred.The INPLASY registration number of this systematic review is INPLASY202310084.

Indexed as

Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantAndrogen Receptor AntagonistsBenzamidesHumansMaleNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinReceptors, AndrogenAndrogen Receptor AntagonistsBenzamidesenzalutamideNitrilesPhenylthiohydantoinReceptors, Androgenapalutamidedarolutamideenzalutamidemetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancermetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancernon-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancersecond-generation androgen receptor inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36967752
PMCPMC10034066
OpenAlexW4323666807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read51
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.