***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: PURPOSE To investigate the benefit of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer using relevant end points of palliation in a r and omized controlled trial . PATIENTS AND METHODS We r and omized 161 hormone-refractory patients with pain to receive mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone ( 10 mg daily ) . Nonresponding patients on prednisone  could receive mitoxantrone subsequently . The primary end point was a palliative response defined as a 2-point decrease in pain as assessed by a 6-point pain scale completed by patients ( or complete loss of pain if initially 1 + ) without an increase in analgesic medication and maintained for two consecutive evaluations at least 3 weeks apart . Secondary end points were a decrease of > or = 50 % in use of analgesic medication without an increase in pain , duration of response , and survival . Health-related quality of life was evaluated with a series of linear analog self- assessment scales ( LASA and the Prostate Cancer-Specific Quality -of-Life Instrument [ PROSQOLI ] ) , the core question naire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer ( EORTC ) , and a disease-specific module . RESULTS Palliative response was observed in 23 of 80 patients ( 29 % ; 95 % confidence interval , 19 % to 40 % ) who received mitoxantrone plus prednisone , and in 10 of 81 patients ( 12 % ; 95 % confidence interval , 6 % to 22 % ) who received prednisone alone ( P = .01 ) . An additional seven patients in each group reduced analgesic medication > or = 50 % without an increase in pain . The duration of palliation was longer in patients who received chemotherapy ( median , 43 and 18 weeks ; P < .0001 , log-rank ) . Eleven of 50 patients r and omized to prednisone treatment responded after addition of mitoxantrone . There was no difference in overall survival . Treatment was well tolerated , except for five episodes of possible cardiac toxicity in 130 patients who received mitoxantrone . Most responding patients had an improvement in quality -of-life scales and a decrease in serum prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) level . CONCLUSION Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone and prednisone provides palliation for some patients with symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer Sipuleucel‐T is an investigational active cellular immunotherapy product design ed to stimulate an immune response against prostate cancer . The safety and efficacy  of sipuleucel‐T was evaluated in 2 identically design ed , r and omized , double‐blind , placebo‐controlled trials ( D9901 and D9902A ) conducted in men with advanced prostate cancer BACKGROUND Mitoxantrone-based chemotherapy palliates pain without extending survival in men with progressive and rogen-independent prostate cancer . We compared docetaxel plus estramustine with mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic , hormone-independent prostate cancer . METHODS We r and omly assigned 770 men to one of two treatments , each given in 21-day cycles : 280 mg of estramustine three times daily on days 1 through 5 , 60 mg of docetaxel per square meter of body-surface area on day 2 , and 60 mg of dexamethasone in three divided doses before docetaxel , or 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter on day 1 plus 5 mg of prednisone twice daily . The primary end point was overall survival ; secondary end points were progression-free survival , objective response rates , and post-treatment declines of at least 50 percent in serum prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) levels . RESULTS Of 674 eligible patients , 338 were assigned to receive docetaxel and estramustine and 336 to receive mitoxantrone and prednisone . In an intention-to-treat analysis , the median overall survival was longer in the group given docetaxel and estramustine than in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone ( 17.5 months vs. 15.6 months , P=0.02 by the log-rank test ) , and the corresponding hazard ratio for death was 0.80 ( 95 percent confidence interval , 0.67 to 0.97 ) . The median time to progression was 6.3 months in the group given docetaxel and estramustine and 3.2 months in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone ( P<0.001 by the log-rank test ) . PSA declines of at least 50 percent occurred in 50 percent and 27 percent of patients , respectively ( P<0.001 ) , and objective tumor responses were observed in 17 percent and 11 percent of patients with bidimensionally measurable disease , respectively ( P=0.30 ) . Grade 3 or 4 neutropenic fevers ( P=0.01 ) , nausea and vomiting ( P<0.001 ) , and cardiovascular events ( P=0.001 ) were more common among patients receiving docetaxel and estramustine than among those receiving mitoxantrone and prednisone .  Pain relief was similar in both groups . CONCLUSIONS The improvement in median survival of nearly two months with docetaxel and estramustine , as compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone , provides support for this approach in men with metastatic , and rogen-independent prostate cancer BACKGROUND Sipuleucel-T , an autologous active cellular immunotherapy , has shown evidence of efficacy in reducing the risk of death among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer . METHODS In this double-blind , placebo-controlled , multicenter phase 3 trial , we r and omly assigned 512 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either sipuleucel-T ( 341 patients ) or placebo ( 171 patients ) administered intravenously every 2 weeks , for a total of three infusions . The primary end point was overall survival , analyzed by means of a stratified Cox regression model adjusted for baseline levels of serum prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) and lactate dehydrogenase . RESULTS In the sipuleucel-T group , there was a relative reduction of 22 % in the risk of death as compared with the placebo group ( hazard ratio , 0.78 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.61 to 0.98 ; P=0.03 ) . This reduction represented a 4.1-month improvement in median survival ( 25.8 months in the sipuleucel-T group vs. 21.7 months in the placebo group ) . The 36-month survival probability was 31.7 % in the sipuleucel-T group versus 23.0 % in the placebo group . The treatment effect was also observed with the use of an unadjusted Cox model and a log-rank test ( hazard ratio , 0.77 ; 95 % CI , 0.61 to 0.97 ; P=0.02 ) and after adjustment for use of docetaxel after the study therapy ( hazard ratio , 0.78 ; 95 % CI , 0.62 to 0.98 ; P=0.03 ) . The time to objective disease progression was similar in the two study groups . Immune responses to the immunizing antigen were observed in patients who received sipuleucel-T.  Adverse events that were more frequently reported in the sipuleucel-T group than in the placebo group included chills , fever , and headache . CONCLUSIONS The use of sipuleucel-T prolonged overall survival among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer . No effect on the time to disease progression was observed . ( Funded by Dendreon ; Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00065442 . Purpose : Sipuleucel-T , an autologous cellular immunotherapy , was investigated in a r and omized , double-blind , controlled trial to determine its biologic activity in and rogen-dependent prostate cancer ( ADPC ) . Experimental Design : Patients with prostate cancer detectable by serum prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) following radical prostatectomy received 3 to 4 months of and rogen suppression therapy  , and were then r and omized  ( 2:1 ) to receive sipuleucel-T ( n = 117 ) or control ( n = 59 ) . The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure ( BF ) defined as serum PSA ≥ 3.0 ng/mL. PSA doubling time ( PSADT ) , time to distant failure , immune response , and safety were also evaluated . Results : Median time to BF was 18.0 months for sipuleucel-T and 15.4 months for control ( HR = 0.936 , P = 0.737 ) . Sipuleucel-T patients had a 48 % increase in PSADT following testosterone recovery ( 155 vs. 105 days , P = 0.038 ) . With only 16 % of patients having developed distant failure , the treatment effect favored sipuleucel-T ( HR = 0.728 , P = 0.421 ) . The most frequent adverse  events in sipuleucel-T patients were fatigue , chills , and pyrexia . Immune responses to the immunizing antigen were greater in sipuleucel-T patients at Weeks 4 and 13 ( P < 0.001 , all ) and were sustained prior to boosting as measured in a subset of patients a median of 22.6 months ( range : 14.3–67.3 months ) following r and omization . Conclusions : No significant difference in time to BF could be shown . The finding of increased PSADT in the sipuleucel-T arm is consistent with its biologic activity in ADPC . Long-term follow-up will be necessary to determine if clinical ly important events , such as distant failure , are affected by therapy . Treatment was generally well tolerated . Clin Cancer Res ; 17(13 ) ; 4558–67 . © 2011 AACR As professionals , we want to use the best treatments ; as patients , we want to be given them . Knowing whether an intervention works ( or does not work ) is fundamental to clinical decision making . However , clinical decision making involves more than simply taking published results of research directly to the bedside . Physicians need to consider how similar their patients are to those in the published studies , to take the values and preferences of their patients into account , and to consider their own experience with a given test or treatment . Evidence from clinical research is becoming increasingly important in medical- practice decisions as more and better evidence is published . But when is the evidence strong enough to justify changing a practice ? Individual studies that involve only small numbers of patients may have results that are distorted by the r and om play of chance and thus lead to less than optimal decisions . As is clear from other papers in this series , systematic review s identify , critically appraise , and review all the relevant studies on a clinical question and are more likely to give a valid answer . They use explicit methods and quality st and ards to reduce bias . Their results are the closest we can come to reaching the truth given our current state of knowledge . The questions about an intervention that a systematic review should answer are the following : 1 . Does it work ? 2 . If it works , how well does it work in general and compared with placebo , no treatment , or other interventions that are currently in use ? 3 . Is it safe ? 4 . Will it be safe and effective for my patients ? Whereas the critical appraisal and qualitative synthesis provided by review articles can be interpreted directly , the numerical products of quantitative review s can be more difficult to underst and and apply in daily clinical practice . This paper provides guidance on how to interpret the numerical and statistical results of systematic review s , translate these results into more underst and able terms , and apply them directly to individual patients . Many of these principles can also be used to interpret the numerical results of individual clinical studies . They are particularly relevant to systematic review s , however , because such review s contain more information than do primary studies and often exert greater influence than do individual studies . Making Sense of the Numerical Results of Clinical Studies Although the results of clinical studies can be expressed in intuitively meaningful ways , such results do not always easily translate into clinical decision making . For example , results are frequently expressed in terms of risk , which is an expression of the frequency of a given outcome . ( Risks are probabilities , which can vary between 0.0 and 1.0 . A probability of 0.0 means that the event will never happen , and a probability of 1.0 means that it always happens . ) Consider a hypothetical study of the recurrence of migraine headaches in a control group receiving placebo and a treatment group receiving a new antimigraine preparation , drug M ( a secondary prevention trial ) . Suppose that at the end of the trial , migraines recurred in 30 % of the control group ( the risk for recurrence was 0.30 ) but in only 5 % of the drug M group ( risk of 0.05 ) ( Table 1 ) . Table 1 . Numerical Expression of Hypothetical Clinical Trial Results The outcomes of the study are clear enough for the two groups when they are examined separately . But clinicians and patients are more interested in the comparative results , that is , the outcome in one group relative to the outcome in the other group . This overall ( comparative ) result can be expressed in various ways . For example , the relative risk , which is the risk in the treatment group relative to that in the control group , is simply the ratio of the risks in the two groups . In other words , relative risk is the risk in the treatment group divided by that in the control group , 0.05 0.30 , or 0.17 . The comparison can also be expressed as the reduction in relative risk , which is the ratio between the decrease 
    Output:
    
CONCLUSION Sipuleucel-T prolongs overall survival in patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC