MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414079112 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2025.08.008

Impact of PARP Inhibitors on Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4414079112 on OpenAlex
Navid Roessler, Marcin Miszczyk, Akihiro Matsukawa, Alessandro Dematteis, Ahmed R Alfarhan, Angelo Cormio, Abdulrahman Alqahtani, Paweł Rajwa, Victor M. Schuettfort, Malte W. Vetterlein, Timo Soeterik, Tamás Fazekas, Margit Fisch, Michael Leapman, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Shahrokh F Shariat

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersBoston Scientific CorporationAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)ProstateProstate cancerPARP inhibitorPoly ADP ribose polymeraseProstate disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective PARP inhibitor (PARPi) agents, alone or in combination with antiandrogens, are considered a standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This meta-analysis evaluates the impact of PARPi agents on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using data from prospective trials. Methods In this prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420251011282), we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases in March 2025 for prospective trials assessing the impact of PARPi on patient HRQoL in mCRPC. Results for the mean differences (MD) in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) total scores at early and late time points were pooled using a random-effects model. Key findings and limitations Reports for seven prospective trials (2861 patients) were included. The PROfound trial ( n = 387) demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in global HRQoL (MD from baseline: 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–12), while the remaining six studies ( n = 2474) did not show a clinically meaningful impact individually. In pooled analysis for the PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and NCT01972217 randomised controlled trials ( n = 911), no clinically meaningful differences in the change in FACT-P total score were observed at early (weeks 8–9: MD −1.4, 95%CI −3.0 to 0.2) or late (weeks 96–101: MD −2.1, 95%CI −8.9 to 4.8) time points. Six studies were rated as having some/moderate concerns regarding bias, and one was considered at high risk of bias because of baseline stratification by symptom status. Conclusions and clinical implications We observed no statistically or clinically meaningful deterioration in HRQoL with PARPi treatment in patients with mCRPC, with one study suggesting a potential benefit. Predefined thresholds may not capture the individual and complex nature of HRQoL in the palliative mCRPC setting, where even modest changes can have important clinical and personal significance, which underscores the importance of nuanced interpretation of HRQoL data in guiding treatment decisions. Patient summary We did not find evidence that drugs called PARP inhibitors have a negative effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for men with advanced prostate cancer. However, the current tools used to measure HRQoL may not fully reflect the individual and complex experiences of patients receiving palliative treatment for their cancer.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.317 · 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