ArticleThe oncologist2025
Toxicity-benefit analysis of advanced prostate cancer trials using weighted toxicity scoring.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating Aggressive-Variant Prostate Cancer-Associated Tumor Suppressor Gene Status with Clinical Variables to Refine Prognosis and Predict Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitor Response in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Setting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe weighted toxicity score (WTS) is a metric suitable for comparing the toxicity burden in experimental versus control arms of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When paired with clinical endpoints, the WTS offers a framework to evaluate the toxicity-benefit profile of anti-cancer agents. This study applied the WTS to phase III advanced prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials.
designSelect phase III PC RCTs with adverse event (AE) data were compiled. The WTS was calculated for each trial arm using 2 approaches: (1) all AEs (A-WTS) and (2) symptomatic AEs (S-WTS). Percent change in WTS between trial arms quantified the toxicity burden, while hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to assess efficacy.
resultsSeventeen RCTs were analyzed (investigational agents: androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors [ARSi, n = 4], poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor monotherapy [PARPi, n = 2], ARSi + PARPi [n = 3], ARSi + ARSi [n = 3], triplet therapy [n = 3], and docetaxel as well as Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-PSMA-617) [n = 1 each]). Overall, toxicity and efficacy were greater among experimental than control arms (median A-WTS 6.62 vs. 4.10; median S-WTS 3.91 vs. 3.08; median HR for OS 0.75, median HR for PFS 0.61). ARSi + PARPi studies observed the highest average A-WTS increase (78%), whereas ARSi + ARSi and triplet therapy trials noted the lowest average A-WTS increases (31% and 32%, respectively) with favorable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: RCTs demonstrated increased toxicity in experimental arms relative to controls, with both toxicity and survival outcomes varying across therapeutic strategies.
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.