Observational studyJournal of comparative effectiveness research2013
Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study.
Observational study in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment [ProtecT] study).BJU international · 2022Trial
- Long-term oncological outcomes from a prospective cohort of patients with localised prostate cancer.BJU international · 2026Article
- Racial and ethnic differences in valuation of life expectancy in prostate cancer treatment decision making.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Association between smoking and prostate cancer survivors' long-term quality of life and function: an analysis of the CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Observational
- Drivers Influencing Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision making - A Qualitative Analysis of Underrepresented Men across the US.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for life expectancy cutoffs for aggressive treatment in clinically localized prostate cancer.Urologic oncology · 2025Article
- Variation in communication of side effects in prostate cancer treatment consultations.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Observational
- Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Association between body mass index and localized prostate cancer management and disease-specific quality of life.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.The Journal of urology · 2022Article
- Article
- Sexual function outcomes of radiation and androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer in men with good baseline function.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Article
- Prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021Review
- Risk stratification tools in prostate cancer, where do we stand?Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Effect of timing of postprostatectomy radiation on functional outcomes.Urologic oncology · 2020Observational
- Development and Internal Validation of a Web-based Tool to Predict Sexual, Urinary, and Bowel Function Longitudinally After Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation.European urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile randomized controlled trials represent the highest level of evidence we can generate in comparative effectiveness research, there are clinical scenarios where this type of study design is not feasible. The Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Surgery and Radiation in localized prostate cancer (CEASAR) study is an observational study designed to compare the effectiveness and harms of different treatments for localized prostate cancer, a clinical scenario in which randomized controlled trials have been difficult to execute and, when completed, have been difficult to generalize to the population at large.
methodsCEASAR employs a population-based, prospective cohort study design, using tumor registries as cohort inception tools. The primary outcome is quality of life after treatment, measured by validated instruments. Risk adjustment is facilitated by capture of traditional and nontraditional confounders before treatment and by propensity score analysis.
resultsWe have accrued a diverse, representative cohort of 3691 men in the USA with clinically localized prostate cancer. Half of the men invited to participate enrolled, and 86% of patients who enrolled have completed the 6-month survey.
conclusionChallenging comparative effectiveness research questions can be addressed using well-designed observational studies. The CEASAR study provides an opportunity to determine what treatments work best, for which patients, and in whose hands.
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.