ArticleCancer2014
Impact of national guidelines on brachytherapy monotherapy practice patterns for prostate cancer.
Article in Cancer, 2014. 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.
- Article
- Prostate cancer: impact of national guidelines on brachytherapy monotherapy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2014Article
- Factors influencing prostate cancer patterns of care: An analysis of treatment variation using the SEER database.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 1999 and 2000, 2 national guidelines recommended brachytherapy monotherapy (BT) primarily for treatment of low-risk prostate cancer but not high-risk prostate cancer. This study examined rates of BT use before and after publication of these guidelines, as compared with 4 other treatment options.
methodsFrom 1990 to 2011, 8128 men with localized prostate cancer (≤ T3cN0M0) were treated definitively within the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry with 1 of 5 primary treatments: BT, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy, EBRT+BT, or radical prostatectomy. Men were categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on the guidelines' risk-group definitions. Within each risk group, logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) comparing BT with other treatment options between the 1990-1998 and 1999-2011 periods, adjusting for age, disease characteristics, and clinic type.
resultsIn total, 1117 men received BT alone for low- (n = 658), intermediate- (n = 244), or high-risk disease (n = 215). BT comprised 6.1% of all treatments in 1990-1998 versus 16.6% in 1999-2011 (P < .01). The odds of BT use remained increased after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 3.06; P < .001) and was seen among low- (OR = 4.52; P < .001), intermediate- (OR = 2.67; P < .001), and even high-risk groups (OR = 2.11; P < .001).
conclusionsNational guidelines did not appear to influence practice patterns, as BT monotherapy use increased relative to other treatments from the 1990-1998 to 1999-2011 periods in unfavorable risk groups including men with high-risk prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24301555What 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.