ArticleWorld journal of urology2008
Is there evidence for a multidisciplinary follow-up after urological cancer? An evaluation of subsequent cancers.
Article in World journal of urology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- [Follow-up care - consequences of urinary diversion after bladder cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2014Article
- [Treatment of bladder cancer. Value of radical prostate-sparing cystectomy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2012Review
- [Peritoneal carcinomatosis after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2011Article
- Patients with localised prostate cancer (t1 - t2) show improved overall long-term survival compared to the normal population.Journal of Cancer · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFollow-up after cancer treatment has been focussing on the detection of local recurrence or metastatic disease of the primary cancer. Subsequent independent malignancies arising during follow-up have not been considered as relevant. Our study evaluated the risk of independent cancers following the diagnosis of primary urological cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 1990 to 1998 data from 4,119 patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years were collected. A total of 1,835 patients had primary prostate cancer, 1,269 and 1,015 patients had primary bladder and renal cell cancer, respectively. The most common subsequent malignancies in males were prostate cancer followed by lung and colon cancer. Breast and colon cancer were the most frequently detected subsequent cancers in females. The age correlated comparison of diagnosed and expected cancer in men with primary prostate cancer revealed an increase in relative risk for bladder, kidney and rectal cancer of 3.75, 2.03 and 1.32-fold, respectively. In men with primary bladder cancer the relation for prostate, kidney and lung cancer was 4.05, 2.51 and 2.13-fold, respectively; for females the relation for kidney cancer was 4.55-fold. In men with primary kidney cancer subsequent rectal, prostate and bladder cancer showed a 4.38, 2.91 and 2.48-fold increase, respectively.
conclusionThese data suggest an increase in relative risk for subsequent urologic and non-urologic cancer during follow-up. Clinicians involved in oncological follow-up need to be aware of this finding. To which degree a follow-up scheme, not solely focussing on the primary urological malignancy could improve survival needs to be evaluated in further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.