ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013
Treatment of local-regional prostate cancer detected by PSA screening: benefits and harms according to prognostic factors.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Trial
- Early quality-of-life and psychological predictors of disease-free time and survival in localized prostate cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Patients' perceptions of the negative effects following different prostate cancer treatments and the impact on psychological well-being: a nationwide survey.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Risk perception and psychological morbidity in men at elevated risk for prostate cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015Article
- Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.European urology · 2014Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMen with screen-detected prostate cancer can choose to undergo immediate curative treatment or enter into an expectant management programme. We quantified how the benefits and harms of immediate treatment vary according to the prognostic factors of clinical T-stage, Gleason score, and patient age.
methodsA microsimulation model based on European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer data was used to predict the benefits and harms of immediate treatment versus delayed treatment of local-regional prostate cancer in men aged 55-74 years. Benefits included life-years gained and reduced probability of death from prostate cancer. Harms included lead time and probability of overdiagnosis.
resultsThe ratio of mean lead time to mean life-years gained ranged from 1.8 to 31.2, and the additional number of treatments required per prostate cancer death prevented ranged from 0.3 to 11.6 across the different prognostic groups. Both harm-benefit ratios were lowest, most favourable, for men aged 55-59 years and diagnosed with moderate-risk prostate cancer. Ratios were high for men aged 70-74 years regardless of clinical T-stage and Gleason score.
conclusionMen aged 55-59 years with moderate-risk prostate cancer are predicted to derive greatest benefit from immediate curative treatment. Immediate treatment is least favourable for men aged 70-74 years with either low-risk or high-risk prostate cancer.
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.