Trial reportCancer medicine2026
Heterogeneity in Treatment Effects of Reduced Versus Standard Dose of Cabazitaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundIn the PROSELICA, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing cabazitaxel 20 mg/m
methodsWe analyzed patient-level data from 1200 patients with mCRPC who were randomized in the PROSELICA trial. Outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Using baseline characteristics, patients were stratified into quartiles based on either quantitative baseline risk of poor outcome (risk modeling) or predicted individualized treatment effect (ITE) using a causal survival forest algorithm (effect modeling). Treatment effects were measured as differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST).
resultsFor risk modeling, the OS effect of C25 increased with risk quartiles: -0.07 months (95% CI, -1.60 to 1.46) in the lowest risk quartile and 1.67 months (95% CI, 0.25 to 3.10) in the highest risk quartile. For effect modeling, the OS effect ranged from -0.17 months (95% CI, -3.01 to 2.68) in the lowest ITE quartile to 0.57 months (95% CI, -2.27 to 3.41) in the highest ITE quartile. Both approaches demonstrated greater C25 benefit in patients with extensive previous treatment and baseline disease burden. PFS effects remained consistent across all quartiles.
conclusionsThe OS effect of C25 versus C20 may vary based on baseline characteristics in post-docetaxel mCRPC. Patients with extensive treatment history and disease burden may benefit more from C25.
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.