ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
Comparative Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Safety Signals Among Advanced Prostate Cancer Therapies Using FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System).
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic options for advanced prostate cancer have expanded in recent years, incorporating multiple-system treatment approaches with differing mechanisms of action. However, comparative real-world safety data following drug approval remain limited. As such, the aim of this study is to characterize adverse events and disproportionate safety signals among advanced prostate cancer therapies using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). A retrospective pharmacovigilance study of FAERS reports evaluated enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, relugolix, niraparib/abiraterone, talazoparib, rucaparib, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, and lutetium-177 vipivotide. Adverse events were categorized by System Organ Class and Preferred Terms. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals identified safety signals. Among 172,440 reports, most involved patients aged 65-85 years. Cabazitaxel had the highest proportion of serious reports (86.6%) and deaths (22%), whereas relugolix had the lowest (23.3% and 4.8%). Nervous system disorders predominated with enzalutamide and darolutamide, gastrointestinal disorders with abiraterone, rucaparib, and niraparib/abiraterone, and hematologic toxicities with cabazitaxel, talazoparib, and lutetium-177 vipivotide. Significant safety signals were identified for abiraterone and cabazitaxel, but not other therapies. The absence of a detected signal should not be interpreted as evidence of safety or equivalence, as reporting volume, detection bias, and statistical power varied across therapies. Overall, the therapies demonstrated distinct toxicity profiles, which may inform treatment selection, toxicity monitoring, and patient counseling.
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.