Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23712209›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2013

Individualized image-based lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer.

Hanneke J M Meijer, Oscar A Debats, Emile N J Th van Lin, Marco van Vulpen, J Alfred Witjes, Wim J G Oyen, Jelle O Barentsz, Johannes H A M Kaanders

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hanneke J M MeijerDepartment of Radiation Oncology [875], Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P O Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. h.meijer@rther.umcn.nl
Oscar A Debats
Emile N J Th van Lin
Marco van Vulpen
J Alfred Witjes
Wim J G Oyen
Jelle O Barentsz
Johannes H A M Kaanders
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversy surrounds the benefit of whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) over prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients with prostate cancer. In the PSA screening era, two large randomized trials as well as multiple retrospective studies comparing WPRT with PORT have been performed, albeit with contradictory results. Data regarding the use of WPRT in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy are scarce. As a consequence, the practice of WPRT varies worldwide. Advanced highly accurate imaging methods for the detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer have been developed, such as PET, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), diffusion-weighted MRI and magnetic resonance lymphography (MRL). The use of these new imaging methods might improve nodal irradiation, as they can be used not only for selection of patients, but also for accurately determining the target volume to reduce geographical miss. Furthermore, these new techniques can enable dose escalation to involved lymph nodes.

Indexed as

Lymphatic IrradiationDiagnostic ImagingDisease-Free SurvivalHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMalePelvisProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23712209
OpenAlexW2146213451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.