Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8455
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTsaur, Igor-
dc.contributor.authorHeidegger, Isabel-
dc.contributor.authorBektic, Jasmin-
dc.contributor.authorKafka, Mona-
dc.contributor.authorvan den Bergh, Roderick C. N.-
dc.contributor.authorHunting, Jarmo C. B.-
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Anita-
dc.contributor.authorBrandt, Maximilian P.-
dc.contributor.authorHöfner, Thomas-
dc.contributor.authorDebedde, Eliott-
dc.contributor.authorThibault, Constance-
dc.contributor.authorErmacora, Paola-
dc.contributor.authorZattoni, Fabio-
dc.contributor.authorFoti, Silvia-
dc.contributor.authorKretschmer, Alexander-
dc.contributor.authorPloussard, Guillaume-
dc.contributor.authorRodler, Severin-
dc.contributor.authorAmsberg, Gunhild von-
dc.contributor.authorTilki, Derya-
dc.contributor.authorSurcel, Christian-
dc.contributor.authorRosenzweig, Barak-
dc.contributor.authorGadot, Moran-
dc.contributor.authorGandaglia, Giorgio-
dc.contributor.authorDotzauer, Robert-
dc.contributor.otherEAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party-
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-01T09:38:22Z-
dc.date.available2022-12-01T09:38:22Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/8471-
dc.description.abstractBackground Docetaxel (D) or secondary hormonal therapy (SHT) each combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) represent possible treatment options in males with metastasized hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Real-world data comparing different protocols are lacking yet. Thus, our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA)+ADT versus D+ADT in mHSPC. Methods In a retrospective multicenter analysis including males with mHSPC treated with either of the aforementioned protocols, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival 1 (PFS1), and progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) were assessed for both cohorts. Median time to event was tested by Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. The Cox-proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Results Overall, 196 patients were included. The AA+ADT cohort had a longer PFS1 in the log-rank testing (23 vs. 13 mos., p < 0.001), a longer PFS2 (48 vs. 33 mos., p = 0.006), and longer OS (80 vs. 61 mos., p = 0.040). In the multivariate analyses AA+ADT outperformed D+ADT in terms of PFS1 (HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.183–0.623; p = 0.001) and PFS2 (HR = 0.33 95% CI = 0.128–0.827; p = 0.018), respectively, while OS and toxicity rate were similar between both groups. Conclusions AA+ADT is mainly associated with a similar efficacy and overall toxicity rate as D+ADT. Further prospective research is required for validation of the clinical value of the observed benefit of AA+ADT for progression-free end-points.en_GB
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rightsCC BY*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_GB
dc.titleA real-world comparison of docetaxel versus abiraterone acetate for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate canceren_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8455-
jgu.type.dinitypearticleen_GB
jgu.type.versionPublished versionde
jgu.type.resourceTextde
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde
jgu.organisation.number2700-
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz-
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccess-
jgu.journal.titleCancer medicinede
jgu.journal.volume10de
jgu.journal.issue18de
jgu.pages.start6354de
jgu.pages.end6364de
jgu.publisher.year2021-
jgu.publisher.nameWileyde
jgu.publisher.placeHoboken, NJde
jgu.publisher.issn2045-7634de
jgu.organisation.placeMainz-
jgu.subject.ddccode610de
jgu.publisher.doi10.1002/cam4.4184de
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485-
Appears in collections:JGU-Publikationen

Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat
Thumbnail
a_realworld_comparison_of_doc-20221201102756455.pdf467.42 kBAdobe PDFView/Open