Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38901175›Full record

ArticleESMO open2024

Bone health and body composition in prostate cancer: Meet-URO and AIOM consensus about prevention and management strategies.

M C Cursano, A A Valsecchi, F Pantano, M Di Maio, G Procopio, A Berruti, F Bertoldo, M Tucci, U De Giorgi, D Santini and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

11 authors.

M C CursanoDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola.
A A ValsecchiDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Ospedale Molinette, Turin.
F PantanoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome.
M Di MaioDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Ospedale Molinette, Turin.
G ProcopioProgramma Prostata Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori Milano, Milan.
A BerrutiOncology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia and ASST SpedaliCivili di Brescia, Brescia.
F BertoldoEmergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona.
M TucciDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, Asti.
U De GiorgiDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola.
D SantiniOncologia Medica A, Policlinico Umberto 1, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: daniele.santini@uniroma1.it.
Meet-URO and AIOM experts

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) treatments are associated with a detrimental impact on bone health (BH) and body composition. However, the evidence on these issues is limited and contradictory. This consensus, based on the Delphi method, provides further guidance on BH management in PCa. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn May 2023, a survey made up of 37 questions and 74 statements was developed by a group of oncologists and endocrinologists with expertise in PCa and BH. In June 2023, 67 selected Italian experts, belonging to the Italian scientific societies Italian Association of Medical Oncology and Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO), were invited by e-mail to complete it, rating their strength of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale. An agreement ≥75% defined the statement as accepted.

resultsIn non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, the panel agreed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone implies sufficient fracture risk to warrant antifracture therapy with bone-targeting agents (BTAs) for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) prevention (79%). Therefore, no consensus was reached (48%) for the treatment with BTAs of patients receiving short-term ADT (<6 months). All patients receiving active treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (75%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (89%) and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) without bone metastases (84%) should be treated with BTAs at the doses and schedule for CTIBL prevention. All mCRPC patients with bone metastasis should be treated with BTAs to reduce skeletal-related events (94%). In all settings, the panel analyzed the type and timing of treatments and examinations to carry out for BH monitoring. The panel agreed on the higher risk of sarcopenic obesity of these patients and its correlation with bone fragility.

conclusionsThis consensus highlights areas lacking major agreement, like non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients undergoing short-term ADT. Evaluation of these issues in prospective clinical trials and identification of early biomarkers of bone loss are particularly urgent.

Indexed as

Body CompositionProstatic NeoplasmsAndrogen AntagonistsDelphi TechniqueHumansMaleAndrogen AntagonistsAIOMbody compositionbone healthconsensusMeet-UROprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID38901175
PMCPMC11252762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.