The use of bisphosphonates in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a systematic review of randomized trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to assess the benefits of bisphosphonate therapy in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). METHODS: The literature was searched to identify RCTs or meta-analyses comparing treatment with bisphosphonates to placebo or no treatment. RESULTS: Ten trials that studied clodronate (five trials, 404 patients), pamidronate (two trials, 350 patients), alendronate (one trial, 49 patients), etidronate (one trial, 51 patients), and zoledronic acid (one trial, 643 patients) in men with HRPC and bone metastases met the eligibility criteria. Pain response was the most frequently reported primary outcome (eight trials). Only the smallest trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in pain, but other non-statistically significant trends and subgroup analyses showing improvement in pain were observed in six clodronate and pamidronate trials. Three trials reported skeletal-related events (SREs). A trial studying zoledronic acid reported a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the number of patients having at least one SRE; however, there were higher rates of some adverse effects, and quality of life was not improved. CONCLUSION: Zoledronic acid appears to reduce the number of patients having at least one SRE in men with bone metastases from HRPC that are causing minimal or no pain. This benefit should be weighed against the associated toxicities, and the neutral effect on quality of life. Bisphosphonates may reduce bone pain in men with HRPC, but the evidence is less robust. Further investigations to identify the role of bisphosphonates alone and in combination with other therapies proven effective for men with HRPC are warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".