MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic impact of C-reactive protein (CRP) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2014· review· en· W2591047932 on OpenAlexaff
Gurudatta Naik, Charity J. Morgan, Pedro Filipe Simoes da Rocha, Arnoud J. Templeton, Gregory R. Pond, Guru Sonpavde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerMeta-analysisInternal medicineHazard ratioConfidence intervalOncologyDocetaxelC-reactive proteinClinical endpointProportional hazards modelCancerRandomized controlled trialUrologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

43 Background: Serum C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation, appears to demonstrate a prognostic impact in small studies of metastatic prostate cancer (MPC). We conducted a meta-analysis to better quantitate its prognostic impact. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify publications and presentations exploring the association of baseline serum CRP and overall survival (OS) in MPC, both castration-sensitive and castration-resistant. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with P values were pooled. HRs were selectively extracted from multivariable analyses. Estimates of HRs were weighted and pooled using the generic inverse variance and random-effect models. Heterogeneity among trials was assessed using Cochrane’s Q statistic and the I2 statistic was used to quantify inconsistency among trials. The assumption of homogeneity was considered invalid for P<0.1. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P<0.05 was considered significant Results: Six studies comprising 659 evaluable patients were eligible. The first authors were Prins (N=119), Pond (N=112), Ito (N=80), Nakashima (N=126), Beer (N=160), and McArdle (N=62). The Nakashima and McArdle studies evaluated castration-sensitive men, while the remaining four studies evaluated castration-resistant men receiving docetaxel-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was OS except the McArdle study, which used cancer specific survival. All HRs were derived from multivariate analyses except the Pond study, which was a bivariate analysis. Men with higher CRP had significantly worse OS than those with lower CRP (HR = 1.42, P<0.001, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.73; I2 = 72.6%, p = 0.003). In trials of castration-sensitive men receiving hormonal therapy, high CRP yielded a HR = 1.92 (P=0.005, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.03; I2 = 0). In castration-resistant men receiving chemotherapy, high CRP yielded HR=1.35 (p=0.003, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.65; I2 = 79%), P for subgroup difference=0.20. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a strong prognostic impact for CRP on OS in men with both castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Prospective validation is justified, 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→