ArticleBMC medicine2026
Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy in patients with high-volume metastatic prostate cancer achieving deep biochemical response to contemporary systemic therapy: a multicentre, prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may improved outcomes in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), but its roles in high-volume disease remains controversial. Contemporary systemic therapy has enabled an increasing proportion of patients with high metastatic burden to achieve deep disease remission, creating a potential window to assess additional benefit from primary tumor resection. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and oncological outcomes of CRP in patients with mHSPC, including those with high-volume disease.
methodsThis multicentre, prospective study recruited patients with histologically diagnosed mHSPC from September, 2018 to October, 2023. All eligible patients received lifelong androgen deprivation therapy combined with novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and achieved a deep biochemical response (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 0.2 ng/ml). Patients either underwent CRP plus standard of care (SOC) or received SOC only. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, incorporating CRP as a time-dependent covariate, were used to evaluate associations with outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics between groups.
resultsOf 126 patients enrolled, 62 underwent CRP + SOC and 64 received SOC. At a median follow-up of 46.7 months, patients in the CRP + SOC group demonstrated prolonged survival compared with those receiving SOC alone. Among 74 patients with high-volume diseases, CRP remained associated with significant longer rPFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36, p = 0.035), OS (HR 0.10, p = 0.006), and PSA-PFS (HR 0.32, p = 0.017). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified CRP as an independent prognostic factor (all p < 0.05). After PSM, 30 well-balanced pairs were identified. In the matched cohort, CRP + SOC was consistently showed improved rPFS (HR 0.31, p = 0.036), OS (HR 0.22, p = 0.031), and PSA-PFS (HR 0.25, p = 0.009) compared with SOC alone.
conclusionsCRP is feasible and associated with improved oncological outcomes in well-selected patients with mHSPC who achieved deep biochemical response to contemporary systemic therapy, including those with high-volume metastatic disease. However, these findings require validation in larger, prospective, randomized controlled trials.
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.