SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Comparative efficacy of olaparib in combination with or without novel antiandrogens for treating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of PARP inhibitor combinations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer across key populations.The oncologist · 2026Article
- PARP Inhibitor Olaparib and Its Combination Therapy in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2026Article
- PARP inhibitors in prostate cancer: clinical applications.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies using novel antiandrogens (NAA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have shown overall survival benefit. As patients develop resistance to NAA therapy, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib in combination with NAA may become a promising therapy. However the overall benefit of olaparib monotherapy or combination therapy still needs to be evaluated. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicity between olaparib, olaparib combined with abiraterone and NAA. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) University Meeting abstracts for randomized controlled trials reporting olaparib and NAA from 2010 up to March, 2023. Network meta-analysis using Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: Four trials reported olaparib, olaparib plus abiraterone and apalutamide plus abiraterone. radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly lower in patients on apalutamide plus abiraterone compared to olaparib (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.06-1.93). rPFS was similar for olaparib plus abiraterone and olaparib (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.99-1.84); likewise, olaparib plus abiraterone and apalutamide plus abiraterone were similar (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35). In addition, there was no significant difference between the three interventions for OS. But olaparib has the highest probability of being a preferred treatment for improving rPFS and OS. Conclusion: rPFS was in favor of olaparib compared with apalutamide plus abiraterone. But there were no difference between olaparib plus abiraterone and either olaparib or apalutamide plus abiraterone. Apalutamide plus abiraterone might be the most preferred intervention in cases where AEs are involved. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com, identifier INPLASY2023100072.
Indexed as
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.