Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39487858›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Influence of metastatic sites and burden on oncological outcomes in patients progressing to metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Mike Wenzel, Benedikt Hoeh, Clara Humke, Florestan Koll, Cristina Cano Garcia, Carolin Siech, Thomas Steuber, Markus Graefen, Miriam Traumann, Luis Kluth and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Mike WenzelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany. Mike.Wenzel@unimedizin-ffm.de.
Benedikt HoehDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Clara HumkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Florestan KollDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Cristina Cano GarciaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Carolin SiechDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Thomas SteuberMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Miriam TraumannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Luis KluthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Philipp MandelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients harbor reduced life expectancy after first-line treatment progression. Currently, no information is available regarding the influence of metastatic sites and osseous burden on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of mCRPC patients.

methodsWe relied on the Frankfurt Metastatic Cancer Database of the Prostate (FRAMCAP) database to select patients progressing to mCRPC and stratified them according to lymph node vs. osseous vs. visceral metastatic sites. Moreover, we stratified osseous mCRPC patients regarding the number of metastatic lesions. Endpoints were PFS and OS in uni- and multivariable Cox regression models.

resultsOf 363 patients, 9.4% harbored M1a vs. 78% M1b vs. 12% M1c mCRPC with significantly higher PSA in M1b (9 vs. 22 vs. 8ng/ml). Rates of DeNovo (15% vs. 60% vs. 56%) were significantly lower in the M1a mCRPC group, compared to M1b and M1c (p < 0.001). In PFS analyses, a median of 12.7 vs. 10.1 vs. 15.9 months for M1a vs. M1b vs. M1c mCRPC was observed (p > 0.05). In multivariable Cox regression models, M1c mCRPC was independently at higher risk for progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.93, p = 0.048), relative to M1a. Regarding OS, significant differences were observed (p = 0.002), with median OS of 58 vs. 42 vs. 25 months for M1a vs. M1b vs. M1c mCRPC and corresponding HRs of 1.54 (p = 0.11) and 2.76 (p < 0.01). In multivariable models M1c mCRPC was associated with higher risk of death (HR: 3.56, p = 0.049), relative to M1a. No differences were observed after stratification according to number of bone lesions (all p ≥ 0.05).

conclusionM1c mCRPC patients are independently at higher risk for progression and death, while M1a patients harbor best cancer-control outcomes.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantAgedBone NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeTumor BurdenBoneDe NovoHigh volumeLymph nodemCRPCVisceral

Identifiers

PMID39487858
PMCPMC11531415

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.