| Title |
Third-line treatment and 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-017-3895-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Finn Edler von Eyben, Giandomenico Roviello, Timo Kiljunen, Christian Uprimny, Irene Virgolini, Kalevi Kairemo, Timo Joensuu |
| Abstract |
There is a controversy as to the relative efficacy of 177Lu prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) and third-line treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of our systematic review was to elucidate whether 177Lu-PSMA RLT and third-line treatment have similar effects and adverse effects (PROSPERO ID CRD42017067743). The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches in Pubmed and Embase selected articles up to September 2017. A search in ClinicalTrials.gov indicated ongoing studies. The meta-analysis used the random-effects model. Twelve studies including 669 patients reported 177Lu-PSMA RLT. Overall, 43% of the patients had a maximum decline of PSA of ≥50% following treatment with 177Lu-PSMA RLT. The treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 177Lu-PSMA for imaging and therapy (I&T) had mainly transient adverse effects. Sixteen studies including 1338 patients reported third-line treatment. Overall, 21% of the patients had a best decline of PSA of ≥50% following third-line treatment. After third-line treatment with enzalutamide and cabazitaxel, adverse effects caused discontinuation of treatment for 10% to 23% of the patients. 177Lu-PSMA RLT gave a best PSA decline ≥50% more often than third-line treatment (mean 44% versus 22%, p = 0.0002, t test). 177Lu-PSMA RLT gave objective remission more often than third-line treatment (overall 31 of 109 patients versus 43 of 275 patients, p = 0.004, χ2 test). Median survival was longer after 177Lu-PSMA RLT than after third-line treatment, but the difference was not statistically significant (mean 14 months versus 12 months, p = 0.32, t test). Adverse effects caused discontinuation of treatment more often for third-line treatment than for 177Lu-PSMA RLT (22 of 66 patients versus 0 of 469 patients, p < 0.001, χ2 test). As for patients with mCRPC, treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 RTL and 177Lu-PSMA I&T gave better effects and caused fewer adverse effects than third-line treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Scientists | 7 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 200 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 51 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 37% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 12 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 12% |
| Unknown | 65 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,655,598
of 24,799,506 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#87
of 3,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,307
of 451,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,799,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.