ArticleBMJ open2024
A modified Delphi consensus regarding the clinical utility of triplet therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the clinical utility of the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)+docetaxel (DOCE)+androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) triplet therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in the UK.
designA modified Delphi method. A steering group of eight UK healthcare professionals experienced in prostate cancer care discussed treatment challenges, developing 39 consensus statements across four topics. Agreement with the statements was tested with a broader panel of professionals within this therapeutic area in the UK through an anonymous survey, using a four-point Likert scale. This was distributed by the steering group members and an independent third party. Following the survey, the steering group convened to discuss the results and formulate recommendations.
settingThe steering group convened online for discussions. The survey was distributed via email by the clinicians and the independent third party.
participantsHealthcare professionals involved in the provision of prostate cancer care, working in relevant professional roles (oncology, urology or geriatric consultant, oncology nurse specialist, and hospital pharmacist) within the UK. No patients or members of the public were involved within the study.
interventionsNone. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus was defined as high (≥75% agreement) and very high (≥90% agreement).
resultsResponses were received from 120 healthcare professionals, including oncologists (n=73), urologists (n=16), geriatricians (n=15), nurse specialists (n=11) and hospital pharmacists (n=5). Consensus was reached for 37 out of 39 (95%) statements, and 27/39 (69%) statements achieved very high agreement ≥90%. Consensus was not reached for 2/39 (5%) statements.
conclusionsBased on the consensus observed, the steering group developed a set of recommendations for the clinical utility of ADT+DOCE+ARTA in treating patients with mHSPC in the UK. Following these recommendations enables clinicians to identify appropriate patients with mHSPC for triplet treatment, thereby improving patients' outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.