SynthesisTargeted oncology2026
Efficacy and Safety Differences Between Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies.
Synthesis in Targeted oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbiraterone (ABI) and enzalutamide (ENZA) are standard treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, their safety and efficacy have not been directly compared in prospective clinical trials.
objectiveTo directly compare their safety and efficacy in prospective clinical trials. PATIENTS AND
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (CRD42024608496) on 24 June 2025. Eligibility criteria included studies on patients with mCRPC treated with ABI or ENZA reporting outcomes such as overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA50/90), progression-free survival (rPFS/bPFS), and rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events, dose reduction, treatment discontinuation, and major cardiovascular events (MACE). Both first- and second-line mCRPC treatment settings were considered. The inverse variance method was used to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs), using the natural logarithm of the HR and its standard error (SE) from the available data.
resultsA total of 47 real-world observation studies and data from 71,984 patients were included, with no randomized controlled trials available for direct comparison. ENZA proved more effective in terms of PSA50 (odds ratio (OR): 1.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-2.4) and OS (HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.87) in the overall cohort as well as in the first-line (PSA50: OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.31, OS: HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92) and second-line setting (PSA50 OR: 1.78; 95% CI 1.23-2.58, OS: HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.60-0.80). However, grade ≥ 3 AEs and treatment discontinuation rates were significantly more frequent with ENZA (OR: 2.17; 95% CI 0.85-5.54 and OR: 1.81; 95% CI 1.45-2.25, respectively), while MACE rates were lower (OR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84).
conclusionsENZA showed greater efficacy, whereas serious AEs were less frequent with ABI. However, this difference may decrease or even disappear upon switching these therapies. Therefore, individual decision-making is encouraged, balancing efficacy and safety. ENZA should be prioritized if OS is the main goal, whereas ABI may be preferred when minimizing AEs is important. ENZA is also associated with a lower risk of MACE.
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.