Trial reportBritish journal of cancer1997
Epirubicin combined with estramustine phosphate in hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a phase II study.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phase II study of vinorelbine and estramustine in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2005Trial
- Weekly epirubicin in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2002Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Twenty-four assessable patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) were to receive daily doses of oral estramustine phosphate (EMP), 10 mg kg(-1), and intravenous epirubicin (EPR) infusions, 100 mg m(-2), every third week up to a cumulative dose of 500 mg m(-2). Biochemical response [> or = 50% reduction in pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after three cycles of > or = 3 weeks' duration] was demonstrated in 13 of 24 patients included (54%). No objective response (WHO criteria) was observed, although seven of nine evaluable patients achieved a > or = 50% serum PSA reduction. Subjective improvement (pain score, performance status) occurred in 7 of 24 patients, whereas nine patients progressed subjectively. There was no correlation between subjective and biochemical response. Biochemical progression (> or = 50% increase of nadir PSA) occurred after a median of 12 weeks. All but two patients were alive after a median follow-up time of 8.7 months for surviving patients (range 3.3-13.2). Eight patients experienced grade 3/4 leucopenia, with no indication of cumulative myelosuppression. Cardiovascular toxicity was experienced by four patients. Two patients developed angioedema twice, in one patient requiring hospitalization at the intensive ward. Based on this limited series, the combination of EPR and EMP in patients with HRPC is tolerable and appears to be effective in terms of significant PSA reduction. The results warrant further investigations of the two drugs and, in particular, of the clinical significance of > or = 50% PSA decrease in patients with HRPC.
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.