ArticleBJU international2013
Comparison of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients receiving unrelated urological and non-urological cancer care.
Article in BJU international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate-Associated Gene 4 (PAGE4): Leveraging the Conformational Dynamics of a Dancing Protein Cloud as a Therapeutic Target.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Review
- Coupling of prostate and thyroid cancer diagnoses in the United States.Annals of surgical oncology · 2015Article
- Intrinsically disordered proteins and prostate cancer: pouring new wine in an old bottle.Asian journal of andrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate prostate cancer diagnosis rates and survival outcomes in patients receiving unrelated (non-prostate) urological care with those in patients receiving non-urological care. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a population-based study using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to identify men who underwent surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; n = 18,188) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC; n = 45,093) between 1992 and 2008. Using SEER*stat software to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), we investigated rates of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients with RCC and patients with CRC. Adjusting for patient age, race and year of diagnosis on multivariate analysis, we used Cox and Fine and Gray proportional hazards regressions to evaluate overall and disease-specific survival endpoints.
resultsThe observed incidence of prostate cancer was higher in both the patients with RCC and those with CRC: SIR = 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.46) vs 1.06 (95% CI 1.02-1.11). Adjusted prostate cancer SIRs were 30% higher (P < 0.001) in patients with RCC. Overall (hazard ratio = 1.13, P < 0.001) and primary cancer-adjusted mortalities (sub-distribution Hazard Ratio (sHR) = 1.17, P < 0.001) were higher in patients with RCC with no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR = 0.827, P = 0.391).
conclusionRates of prostate cancer diagnosis were higher in patients with RCC (a cohort with unrelated urological cancer care) than in those with CRC. Despite higher overall mortality in patients with RCC, prostate cancer-specific survival was similar in both groups. Opportunities may exist to better target prostate cancer screening in patients who receive non-prostate-related urological care. Furthermore, urologists should not feel obligated to perform prostate-specific antigen screening for all patients receiving non-prostate-related urological care.
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.