Comparison of effectiveness and safety outcomes of abiraterone versus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety between abiraterone and enzalutamide in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant articles from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase from their inception through November 4, 2019. Available articles from conferences were searched. The endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), number of patients with any adverse event (AE). RESULTS: 15 cohort studies involving 3546 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled result showed that PSA response rate in the enzalutamide group was significantly greater than that in the abiraterone group (867 patients, risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.79, p＜0.00001, I2=29%). There was no significant difference in the total incidence of AEs between two groups (730 patients, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14-1.31, p = 0.14, I2=84%). The common adverse events observed in the published articles were fatigue and perceived cognitive impairments. Patients who received enzalutamide had the higher risk to have the feeling of fatigue compared with abiraterone group (2555 patients, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85, p=0.01, I2=92%). And there was no statistical difference between two groups respect to the side effect of perceived cognitive impairments (1856 patients, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47-1.88, p=0.85, I2=15%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that enzalutamide was associated with higher PSA response rate compared to abiraterone in patients with mCRPC, and no significant difference was found between two groups in the overall AE. But enzalutamide use induced higher risk of the AE of fatigue.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".