Observational studyBMC cancer2025
Efficacy and toxicity of low-doses versus standard-dose enzalutamide in advanced prostate cancer: a real-world study with implications for cancer prevention/interception.
Observational study in BMC cancer, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnzalutamide at standard doses (160 mg/day) is effective in advanced prostate cancer (PCa) but is associated with considerable adverse events (AEs) and high financial costs. Preliminary reports suggest that low/intermediate doses (≤80 mg/day) retain efficacy while reducing toxicity. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of low/intermediate dose vs standard-dose enzalutamide in a real-world cohort.
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 140 assessable patients treated with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant (80%) or sensitive (20%) PCa. Patients were categorized by cumulative average daily dose relative to the standard dose (160 mg/day): low (≤50%, n = 11), intermediate (>50% and ≤80%, n = 16), and high (>80%, n = 113). The primary endpoint was the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) by restricted mean time. Secondary endpoints included PSA response (decline ≥50% at 3 months), overall survival (OS) at 36 months and worsening of AEs of interest (fatigue, neurological disorders, hypertension).
resultsThere were no significant differences in PFS at 12 months on high vs intermediate dose (10.4 vs 11.4 mo, p= 0.09) and high vs low dose (10.4 vs 9.2 mo, p = 0.37), nor was there on PSA response (70% vs 75% vs 60% on high, intermediate, low doses, respectively). Intermediate or low doses showed no evidence of adverse effects on OS at 36 months. The rate of fatigue worsening on high vs intermediate vs low dose was 61.1%, 63.0% and 27.3% (p = 0.03 for high vs low).
conclusionsLow/intermediate doses of enzalutamide show comparable efficacy than high dose while improving tolerability, indicating the need for further search of its optimal dose. Moreover, our findings prompt a study of the optimal dose in advanced disease and in the prevention/interception setting in patients with low/intermediate risk PCa under active surveillance.
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.