ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
A network meta-analysis of the safety of systemic treatments in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The last decade saw the emergence of several new systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). While these treatments demonstrated similar efficacy in indirect comparisons, comparisons of safety outcomes are needed to help guide the selection of treatment regimens and sequences. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) comparing safety of systemic treatments for mHSPC. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating systemic treatments for mHSPC published before July 2022. Studies were restricted by network connectivity and study population homogeneity. Bayesian NMAs were performed for available data on grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and any AE. Results: The study included eight RCTs (n=172-1228 by treatment arm) and seven treatment regimens: androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, docetaxel plus ADT, androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI; apalutamide, enzalutamide, or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone [AAP]) plus ADT, and docetaxel plus ARPI (darolutamide or AAP) plus ADT. Apalutamide plus ADT had the lowest relative risk ([RR]; 1.18 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1.02-1.35) of grade ≥3 AEs versus ADT alone, followed by enzalutamide plus ADT (1.34 [1.17-1.52]), docetaxel plus ADT (1.44 [1.33-1.56]), AAP plus ADT (1.48 [1.39-1.58]), darolutamide plus docetaxel plus ADT (1.53 [1.33-1.72]), and AAP plus docetaxel plus ADT (1.60 [1.41-1.79]). For SAEs, RRs (95% CrI) versus ADT alone were 1.26 (1.03-1.53) for apalutamide plus ADT, 1.33 (1.12-1.57) for AAP plus ADT, 1.54 (1.28-1.84) for enzalutamide plus ADT, 3.78 (3.35-4.26) for docetaxel plus ADT, and 3.83 (3.39-4.31) for darolutamide plus docetaxel plus ADT. Similar results were observed for any AE. Conclusions: Overall, risk of grade ≥3 AEs, SAEs, and any AE was lower with doublet ARPI versus docetaxel-based doublet or triplet regimens, and apalutamide plus ADT had the lowest risk. Variability of data reporting should be considered.
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.