ArticleAsian journal of andrology2012
Implications of the prostate intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT).
Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Rethinking active surveillance for prostate cancer in African American men.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
- Prostate cancer: Determining optimal therapy of early-stage disease remains complicated.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PSA screening improves early detection of prostate cancer but can lead to overtreatment if all of these cancers are treated. The first randomized treatment study for men with PSA detected cancers has now been reported. The PIVOT (prostatectomy intervention versus observation trial) results are noteworthy. There were no overall or cancer-specific survival benefits from radical prostatectomy versus observation. This result was primarily driven by the largest subset, men with ‘low risk’ prostate cancer (organ-confined, Gleason 6, and PSA ,10 ng ml-1). Even though men enrolled in PIVOT were older and sicker as compared to most radical prostatectomy series, there was a strong tendency toward improved prostate cancer specific survival for participants with a PSA .10 ng ml-1 or Gleason scores of 7 or higher. This important study underscores the benefits of observation for those with ‘low risk’ prostate cancer and the potential benefits of surgery for those in higher risk categories.
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.