Survival benefit, disease progression and quality-of-life outcomes of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has long been the gold standard for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Clinical trials have demonstrated significant survival benefits when docetaxel (DOC) or abiraterone acetate (AA) and prednisone (P) are added to ADT, necessitating comparison of these combination treatments. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AA-/ADT-/DOC-containing treatment regimens in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk and/or high-volume mHSPC identified three RCTs (LATITUDE, CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU 15). Network meta-analyses (NMAs) using fixed effects Bayesian methods were performed to compare relative benefits of each treatment on overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and quality of life (QoL) measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire. One trial, STAMPEDE, was assessed in exploratory OS analyses. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for OS ranged from 0.85 to 0.92, with the Bayesian probability of AA + P + ADT being better than DOC + ADT ranging between 72% and 87%. For rPFS, the HR ranged between 0.71 and 0.76 (Bayesian probability range: 93%-97%). Exploratory analyses including STAMPEDE found similar trends. AA + P + ADT also showed improved QoL compared with DOC + ADT for at least 1 year of therapy, with results being more pronounced at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that AA + P + ADT is at least as effective as DOC + ADT in reducing the risk of death in men with mHSPC and better at preventing disease progression and improving QoL. The NMA provides useful insights to clinicians and other decision-makers on the relative efficacy of treatment options for men with mHSPC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".