Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699643›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Comparative effectiveness of multiple androgen receptor signaling inhibitor medicines with androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a study in the real world.

Yutong Lu, Jingqi Jiang, Gaoyang Yang, Hui Ding, Qihui Zheng, Luhua Ji, Yuhan Wang, Zhilong Dong, Zhenxing Zhai, Junqiang Tian and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors.

Yutong Lu *Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Jingqi JiangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Gaoyang Yang *Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Hui DingDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Qihui ZhengDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Luhua JiDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Yuhan WangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Zhilong DongDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Zhenxing ZhaiDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Junqiang TianDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Yunxing ZhangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Juan WangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Li YangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Zhiping WangDepartment of Urology, Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Urological Disease Research, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The current treatment strategy for metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mHSPC) is the combination of Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSIs) medicines with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, there is a lack of real-world data comparing the efficacy of different ARSI pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of bicalutamide, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide in combination with ADT for patients with mHSPC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 82 patients diagnosed with mHSPC, including 18 patients treated with abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 21 patients with enzalutamide, 20 patients with apalutamide, and 23 patients with bicalutamide. We evaluated PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), imaging progression-free survival (r PFS), castration resistance progression-free survival (CRPC-PFS), and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Additionally, we explored relevant factors affecting prognosis through univariate and multivariate Cox risk-proportionality models. PSA response rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, nadir PSA levels (nPSA), and time to nadir (TTN) in different medication subgroups after treatment were documented, and we used one-way ANOVA to determine the effect of these measures on patient prognosis. Results: In comparison with bicalutamide, both enzalutamide and apalutamide have shown significant advantages in delaying disease progression among mHSPC patients. Specifically, enzalutamide has been found to significantly prolong PSA-PFS (HR 2.244; 95% CI 1.366-3.685, p=0.001), rPFS (HR 2.539; 95% CI 1.181-5.461; p= 0.007), CRPC-PFS (HR 2.131; 95% CI 1.295-3.506; p= 0.003), and OS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.183-3.585; P=0.005). Similarly, apalutamide has significantly extended PSA-PFS (HR 5.071; 95% CI 1.711-15.032; P= 0.003) and CRPC-PFS (HR 6.724; 95% CI 1.976-22.878; P=0.002) among patients. On the other hand, the use of abiraterone in combination with ADT did not demonstrate a significant advantage in delaying diseases progression when compared with the other three agents in mHSPC patients. There were no significant differences in overall adverse event rates among the four pharmaceuticals in terms of safety. Additionally, the observation of PSA kinetics revealed that enzalutamide, apalutamide, and abiraterone acetate had a significant advantage in achieving deep PSA response (PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/ml) compared with bicalutamide (p=0.007 at 12 months). Enzalutamide and apalutamide exhibited preeminence efficacy, with no substantial difference observed between the two medications. Conclusions: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide were found to significantly reduce and stabilize PSA levels in mHSPC patients more quickly and thoroughly than bicalutamide. Furthermore, enzalutamide and apalutamide were found to significantly prolong survival and delay disease progression in mHSPC patients compared with bicalutamide. It should be noted that abiraterone did not demonstrate a significant advantage in delaying disease compared with enzalutamide and apalutamide. After conducting drug toxicity analyses, it was determined that there were no significant differences among the four drugs.

Indexed as

androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)androgen receptor signaling inhibitors medicinesdisease progressionmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate canceroverall survival (OS)prostate-specific antigen (PSA)

Identifiers

PMID38699643
PMCPMC11063352

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.