Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Bone Pain Is Associated with Short Radiologic-Progression-Free Survival in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Journal of Clinical Medicine 2026, 15(10), 3968. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15103968

Submitted:

16 April 2026

Posted:

20 April 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Background: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of bone pain at presentation in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and its association with radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), independent of established prognostic factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 205 patients with mCSPC treated at our center. Data were obtained from patient files and hospital records. rPFS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Baseline characteristics according to bone pain status were compared using the χ² test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Results: Median rPFS for the entire cohort was 23.8 months (95% CI: 18.6–29.0). In univariate analysis, median rPFS was significantly shorter in patients with bone pain compared to those without (16.9 vs. 29.5 months, p < 0.001). Other factors associated with worse rPFS included ECOG PS ≥1, DNA repair mutations, high disease volume, liver metastasis, hemoglobin < 12 g/dL, and albumin < 3.5 g/dL. In multivariate analysis, bone pain (HR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.29–4.34; p = 0.005), albumin < 3.5 g/dL (HR = 1.99; p = 0.034), hemoglobin < 12 g/dL (HR = 2.00; p = 0.005), and liver metastasis (HR = 3.07; p = 0.024) remained independent predictors of shorter rPFS. Conclusions: Bone pain at presentation is an independent prognostic factor for shorter rPFS and may help guide risk stratification and treatment decisions in mCSPC.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Baseline biomarkers have been shown to predict survival outcomes and may allow for more personalized treatment strategies in metastatic prostate cancer [1]. Both prognostic and predictive factors for survival have been well established in this setting [2,3]. Previous studies have identified several independent prognostic variables in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including bone pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Gleason score, hemoglobin (Hb) level, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and the presence of visceral disease [3,4].
Several investigations have also confirmed that pain is a statistically significant predictor of overall survival (OS) in men with mCRPC [1,2]. Bone metastases represent the most frequent metastatic site in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, observed in nearly 80% of patients at diagnosis [5]. Despite this, evidence regarding the impact of bone pain on survival outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) remains limited [5,6].
Given this gap, we aimed to assess the prognostic value of bone pain at the time of diagnosis in mCSPC. Establishing that bone pain carries prognostic significance independent of other recognized factors could help inform the selection of more intensive approaches in future trials, such as triplet therapies incorporating docetaxel and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). Moreover, integrating bone pain at presentation into clinical studies and risk-stratification models may improve the accuracy of prognostic scoring systems. In this study, we specifically examined the association between bone pain and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with mCSPC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We evaluated retrospective data from 205 patients with mCSPC treated at Bakırköy Research and Education Hospital Oncology Center. Patient data were obtained from patient files and hospital records. Demographic, clinicopathological, laboratory, and clinical outcome data were collected in a single central database retrospectively.

2.2. Data Collection

The following eleven potential prognostic factors were included in the univariate analyses: Presentation with pain at the time of metastatic disease, age (<70 vs. ≥70 years), ECOG PS (0 vs. ≥1), Gleason score (<8 vs. ≥8), Hb (normal vs. abnormal), PSA level at the time of diagnosis, ALP (normal vs. abnormal), LDH (normal vs. abnormal), bone metastases (yes vs. no), visceral metastases (yes vs. no), metastases at diagnosis vs. after local treatment failure, and high vs. low volume based on the CHAARTED criteria [7]. We included patients who required analgesics or opioids due to bone metastases in the pain-presenting group.
LDH, ALP, and Hb were defined as abnormal for values above the upper limit or below the lower limit of the normal range, as determined by the laboratory performing the assays. Albumin, LDH, ALP and Hb were classified as abnormal based on predefined thresholds. Albumin levels below 3.5 g/dL (normal range: 3.5–5.0 g/dL) were considered low. LDH values greater than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN; reference range: 140–280 U/L) were defined as high, and ALP values above the ULN (reference range: 44–147 U/L) were also considered high. Hb, LDH, and ALP were otherwise considered abnormal when outside the normal ranges established by the performing laboratory. PSA level was evaluated according to the median value.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). It was defined as the time interval from treatment initiation to the date when the first site of disease progression or death occurs, whichever comes first, according to the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria [8]. rPFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used for comparisons between different subgroups. Differences in baseline characteristics by bone pain status at mCSPC diagnosis were evaluated using the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Univariate analysis was performed to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact rPFS, where variables with a significant p-value (≤ 0.05) were selected for the multivariate model. All data analyses were performed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Data from 205 patients were analyzed. Median follow-up time was 32.3 months (range, 3–86 months) and median age was 68 years (range, 38–91 years). A detailed summary of the patient characteristics is shown in Table 1. Patients with bone pain presented significantly more frequent with ECOG PS ≥1, metastases at diagnosis, high disease volume and liver metastases. Other differences with a trend toward statistical significance included more metachronous metastases, lower Hb levels, higher PSA levels and higher docetaxel use in patients presenting with bone pain. Additionally, DNA repair mutations were evaluated in 91 of the 205 patients. The mutation rate was 9.6% in patients presenting with pain and 5% those without pain, however this numerical difference was not statistically significant.

Analysis of rPFS and Prognostic Factors

Median rPFS of all patients was 23.8 months (95% CI: 18.6 - 29.0 months). In univariate analysis, median rPFS was 16.9 months vs. 29.5 months in patients with bone pain vs. those without (p = 0.001) (Figure 1, Table 2). Median rPFS was 29.0 vs. 20.3 months in patients with ECOG PS 0 vs. ≥1 (p = 0,094), 21.7 vs. 13.8 months in patients with absent vs. present DNA repair mutations (p = 0.064), 27.1 vs. 19.5 months in patients with low vs. high disease volume (p = 0.050), 25.1 vs. 14.9 months in patients without vs. with liver metastases (p = 0.011), 27.5 vs. 16.9 months in patients with Hb ≥12 vs. <12 g/dL (p = 0.002), and 27.1 vs. 14.7 months in patients with albumin ≥3.5 vs. <3.5 g/dL (p=0.002), respectively (Table 2).
In the high-volume subgroup, median rPFS was 16.7 months in patients presenting with pain compared to 29.0 months in those with no pain, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001) (Figure 2A, Table 2). Similarly, rPFS was 21.0 months in patients with low volume and pain compared to 29.50 months in those with low volume and no pain, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) (Figure 2B, Table 2).
In multivariate analysis, bone pain (HR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.29–4.34; p = 0.005), Hb <12 g/dL (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.90–3.10; p = 0.005), albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.06-3.76; p = 0.034) and liver metastasis (HR = 3.07, 95% CI: 1.16–8.15; p = 0.024) were identified as independent determinants of shorter rPFS (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Approximately 10% of prostate cancer patients present with metastatic disease at the time of initial diagnosis, and their estimated five-year survival rate is around 37% [9]. For most men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), international guidelines recommend androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), with or without the addition of docetaxel chemotherapy [10]. In a pivotal trial of 1,199 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic disease, the addition of abiraterone to ADT significantly improved overall survival compared with ADT alone (53.3 months vs. 36.5 months; HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56–0.78) [11]. Similar benefits have been observed with other ARPIs, including enzalutamide and apalutamide, when combined with ADT. Consequently, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide are all considered standard treatment options for men with newly diagnosed mCSPC [11,12,13,14,15].
In patients with mCSPC, combining ADT with both ARPIs and docetaxel has demonstrated greater efficacy than ADT plus docetaxel alone. Based on these findings, triplet therapy with ADT, darolutamide, and docetaxel has received regulatory approval for clinical use [16,17,18].
The association between bone pain and clinical outcomes is well established in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), where pain at presentation is linked to more aggressive disease biology and inferior responses to chemotherapy and ARPI treatment [3,4,5,6]. In contrast, the prognostic relevance of bone pain in men with treatment-naïve mCSPC remains insufficiently defined and has not been comprehensively studied. In the present study, we found that mCSPC patients who reported bone pain at diagnosis experienced poorer treatment responses and overall outcomes compared with those without pain. Importantly, our analysis demonstrated that pain was an independent prognostic factor associated with reduced survival.
In the SWOG-1216 trial, patients who reported baseline bone pain were generally younger and more likely to present with high-volume disease compared to those without pain. After adjustment for potential confounders, baseline bone pain was independently associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [6]. Our results are consistent with these findings, confirming that bone pain correlates with higher disease burden and shorter rPFS. Building on the SWOG-1216 observations, we further demonstrated that DNA repair gene alterations may be more common in patients presenting with bone pain. This could help explain the more aggressive clinical course observed in this subgroup. Unlike mCRPC, where numerous prognostic and predictive markers have been established, relatively few studies have examined such factors in mCSPC. The GETUG-15 trial identified visceral metastases, bone metastases, ECOG PS (0 vs. 1–2), Hb, ALP, LDH, PSA (≤65 ng/mL vs. >65 ng/mL), and pain intensity as significant predictors of OS [5]. Our findings are consistent with GETUG-15 and additionally confirm bone pain as an independent predictor of shorter rPFS in multivariate analysis.
To further investigate the relationship between pain and disease burden, we stratified patients into high- and low-volume subgroups according to the CHAARTED criteria. In contrast to the SWOG-1216 [6] and GETUG-15 [5] studies, we observed that pain at presentation was associated with worse outcomes in both high- and low-volume groups compared with those without pain. This suggests that pain may serve as a prognostic marker of tumor biology, independent of disease volume. Oudard et al. previously showed that men with mCRPC who were asymptomatic had consistently better OS than symptomatic patients treated with docetaxel [2]. Using an 11-point numerical rating scale, they demonstrated a significant association between pain intensity and OS, with moderate or severe pain conferring a substantially higher risk of death compared to minimal or no pain [2].
The principal limitation of our study is the absence of a standardized pain assessment instrument, such as the Wisconsin Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) [19] or the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire [20], which provide structured tools to categorize and quantify pain. Additionally, we classified patients simply as having pain, without distinguishing between those requiring only non-opioid analgesics and those requiring opioid medications.

5. Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that bone pain at presentation is associated with poor prognostic factors in mCSPC, including high disease volume, poor performance status, and liver metastases. Furthermore, bone pain at presentation was identified as an independent prognostic factor for shorter rPFS in these patients. We also showed that pain is an important prognostic marker independent of disease volume, suggesting that patients with pain may have more aggressive tumor biology. Pain, as an easily measurable parameter, provides important information regarding the course of the disease. Therefore, bone pain at presentation should be considered a prognostic factor when selecting treatment options or developing prognostic models for mCSPC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar, İlkay Gültürk, Selçuk Şahin, Kamil Gökhan Şeker, Volkan Tuğcu; Methodology, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Volkan Tuğcu; Validation, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural; Formal analysis, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar; Investigation, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar, İlkay Gültürk, Selçuk Şahin, Kamil Gökhan Şeker, Volkan Tuğcu; Resources, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar, Selçuk Şahin, Kamil Gökhan Şeker, Volkan Tuğcu; Data curation, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar, Selçuk Şahin, Kamil Gökhan Şeker, Volkan Tuğcu; Writing—review and editing, Aykut Özmen, Deniz Tural, Caner Kapar, Selçuk Şahin, Kamil Gökhan Şeker, Volkan Tuğcu.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Bakırköy Research and Education Hospital (protocol code 2024/244).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to (specify the reason for the restriction).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclose

The results of this study have been presented as an abstract at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Genitourinary Cancers Congress (Abstract number: 477918).

References

  1. Halabi, S.; Vogelzang, N.J.; Kornblith, A.B.; et al. Pain predicts overall survival in men with metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26, 2544–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Oudard, S.; Banu, E.; Medioni, J.; et al. What is the real impact of bone pain on survival in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer treated with docetaxel? BJU Int. 2009, 103(12), 1641–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Halabi, S.; Yang, Q.; Roy, A.; et al. External validation of a prognostic model of overall survival in men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023, 41, 2736–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Armstrong, A.J.; Lin, P.; Higano, C.S.; et al. Development and validation of a prognostic model for overall survival in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018, 29, 2200–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gravis, G.; Boher, J.M.; Fizazi, K.; et al. Prognostic factors for survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer: validation of the Glass model and development of a novel simplified prognostic model. Eur Urol. 2015, 68, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gabriela, G.; Jo, Y.; Swami, U.; et al. Bone pain and survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A secondary analysis of the SWOG-1216 trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024, 7, e2419966. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sweeney, C.J.; Chen, Y.H.; Carducci, M.; et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015, 373, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Scher, H.I.; Morris, M.J.; Walter, M.; et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: Updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J Clin Oncol. 2016, 34, 1402–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. National Cancer Institute. Cancer facts: prostate cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html (accessed on 28 March 2024).
  10. NationalComprehensiveCancerNetwork. Prostate cancer. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  11. Fizazi, K.; Tran, N.; Fein, L.; et al. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 686–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fizazi, K.; Tran, N.; Fein, L.; et al. LATITUDE Investigators. Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017, 377, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. James, N.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Spears, M.R.; et al. STAMPEDE Investigators. Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N Engl J Med. 2017, 377, 338–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chi, K.N.; Agarwal, N.; Bjartell, A.; et al. TITAN Investigators. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019, 381, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sweeney, C.J.; Martin, A.J.; Stockler, M.R.; et al. ENZAMET Trial Investigators and Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group. Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023, 24, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Fizazi, K.; Foulon, S.; Carles, J.; et al. PEACE-1 investigators Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Lancet 2022, 399, 1695–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hussain, M.; Tombal, B.; Saad, F.; et al. Darolutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer by disease volume and risk subgroups in the phase Phase III ARASENS Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 4, 3595–3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Matthew R. Smith, Maha Hussain, Fred Saad, et al. Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2022, 386, 1132–1142. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Daut, R.L.; Cleeland, C.S.; Flanery, R.C.; et al. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Inventory to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain. 1983, 17, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Fayers, P.; Aaronson, N.K.; Bjordal, K.; et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual; EORTC Quality of Life Department: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier curves of radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS) stratified by bone pain.
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier curves of radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS) stratified by bone pain.
Preprints 208858 g001
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier curves of radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with (A) high- and (B) low-volume disease stratified by bone pain.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier curves of radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with (A) high- and (B) low-volume disease stratified by bone pain.
Preprints 208858 g002
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients.
Variable Patients p-value
Presence of bone pain (n=104) Absence of bone pain (n=101)
ECOG PS, n (%) <0.001
     0 34 (32.7) 67 (66.3)
     ≥1 70 (67.3) 34 (33.7)
Gleason score at diagnosis, n (%) 0.723
     <8 31 (29.8) 34 (33.7)
     ≥8 66 (63.5) 65 (64.4)
     Unknown 7 (6.7) 2 (1.9)
Age, n (%) 0.242
     <70 years 40 (38.5) 47 (46.5)
     ≥70 years 64 (61.5) 54 (53.5)
Disease volume, n (%) <0.001
     High 76 (73.1) 29 (28.7)
     Low 28 (26.9) 72 (71.3)
Metastasis at diagnosis, n (%) 0.05
     Yes 79 (75.9) 64 (63.4)
     No 25 (24. 1) 37 (36.6)
Metachronous metastasis, n (%) 0.06
     Yes 25 (24.1) 36 (35.6)
     No 79 (75.9) 65 (64.4)
Liver metastasis at diagnosis, n (%) 0.002
     Yes 9 (8.7) 0 (0)
     No 95 (91.3) 101 (100)
DNA repair mutation, n (%) 0.436
     Positive 10 (9.6) 5 (5.0)
     Negative 38 (36.5) 38 (37.6)
     Unknown 56 (53.9) 58 (57.4)
Hemoglobin, n (%) 0.073
     <12 g/dL 30 (28.8) 20 (19.8)
     ≥12 g/dL 61 (58.7) 74 (73.3)
     Unknown 13 (12.5) 7 (6.9)
PSA, n (%) 0.094
     <17 ng/mL 46 (44.2) 56 (55.4)
     ≥17 ng/mL 58 (55.8) 45 (44.6)
First-line treatment, n (%) 0.080
     ARPI 43 (41.3) 45 (44.6)
     Only ADT 34 (32.7) 42 (41.6)
     Docetaxel 27 (26.0) 14 (13.8)
Note: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; ARPI, androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.
Table 2. Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS).
Table 2. Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS).
Subgroup Median rPFS (Months) 95% CI p-value
All Patients 23.8 18.6-29.0 NA
Bone pain at presentation <0.001
     Present 16.9 13.3-20.4
     Absent 29.5 25.2-33.8
High-volume disease <0.001
     With pain presentation 16.7 13.4-20.0
     Without pain presentation 29.0 20.3-37.7
Low-volume disease <0.001
     With pain presentation 21.0 13.8-28.1
     Without pain presentation 29.5 24.2-34.8
Age 0.623
     <70 years 28.2 23.5-32.9
     ≥70 years 21.7 18.2-25.3
DNA repair mutation 0.064
     Positive 13.8 9.2-18.4
     Negative 21.7 14.1-29.3
     Unknown 27.5 23.1-31.9
Metastasis at diagnosis 0.635
     Yes 23.2 17.7-28.7
     No 25.1 15.4-34.8
Disease volume 0.050
     High 19.5 15.9-23.1
     Low 27.1 21.7-32.6
Metachronous metastasis 0.654
     Yes 25.1 15.4-34.9
     No 23.2 17.7-28.7
Liver metastasis at diagnosis 0.011
     Yes 14.9 5.9-29.0
     No 25.1 20.0-30.2
Lymph node metastasis at diagnosis 0.792
     Yes 24.2 19.7-28.6
     No 19.6 9.1-30.0
Lung metastasis at diagnosis 0.967
     Yes 26.2 20.4-32.1
     No 23.6 17.7-29.5
Hb 0.002
     <12 g/dL 16.9 14.5-19.3
     ≥12 g/dL 27.5 23.9-31.1
LDH 0.141
     <1.5× ULN 26.2 20.2-32.3
     ≥1.5× ULN 20.3 13.9-26.8
ECOG PS 0.094
     0 29.0 26.7-31.3
     ≥1 20.3 17.8-22.9
Albumin 0.002
     ≥3.5 g/dL 27.1 23.4-30.8
     <3.5 g/dL 14.7 8.6-20.8
ALP 0.040
     < ULN 27.1 17.9-36.3
     ≥ ULN 19.5 17.5-21.5
Note: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; Hb, hemoglobin; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ULN, upper limit of normal; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; ALP, alkaline phosphatase.
Table 3. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS).
Table 3. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for radiologic-progression-free survival (rPFS).
Variable HR 95% CI p-value
Presentation with pain 2.37 1.29-4.34 0.005
High-volume disease 0.67 0.36-1.27 0.199
Liver metastasis 3.07 1.16-8.15 0.024
Hb <12 g/dL 2.00 1.90-3.10 0.005
Albumin <3.5 g/dL 1.99 1.06-3.76 0.034
ALP ≥ ULN 1.25 0.71-2.20 0.447
Note: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; Hb, hemoglobin; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ULN, upper limit of normal.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings