Prognostic Impact of C-Reactive Protein in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) demonstrates a prognostic impact in small studies of metastatic prostate cancer (MPC). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify publications and presentations exploring the association of serum CRP and overall survival (OS) in MPC, both castration-sensitive and castration-resistant. Heterogeneity among trials was assessed using Cochrane's Q statistic, and the I(2) statistic was used to quantify inconsistency. The assumption of homogeneity was considered invalid if p < 0.1. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 6 studies were eligible, totaling 659 evaluable patients. 2 studies evaluated castration-sensitive men receiving androgen deprivation, while the remaining 4 studies evaluated castration-resistant men receiving docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Men with higher CRP had significantly worse OS than those with lower CRP (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.73). In trials of castration-sensitive men, high CRP yielded a HR = 1.92 (p = 0.005, 95% CI 1.22-3.03; I(2) = 0). In castration-resistant men, high CRP yielded HR = 1.35 (p = 0.003, 95% CI 1.11-1.65; I(2) = 78.6%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests a detrimental impact for CRP on OS in MPC. Prospective validation is justified to enhance prognostication and trial design, given the affordability, ready availability, and large dynamic range of CRP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".