ArticleIrish journal of medical science2015
Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Review
- Acknowledging unreported problems with active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective single-centre observational study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- Prostate cancer: active surveillance may prove organisationally impossible.Irish journal of medical science · 2015Article
- Heterogeneity in active surveillance protocols worldwide.Reviews in 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a recognised treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).
aimsTo review AS criteria in terms of patient selection, follow-up and indications for intervention.
methodsA total of 2,959 potential participants were identified and invited via email to complete an online survey. Only urologists practising in an EU country were eligible to participate. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 18.0. The χ (2) test was used to compare responses between those who do and do not follow an AS protocol.
resultsResponse rate was 8% (n = 226). Ninety-seven per cent urologists offer AS; 25% (n = 53/215) within a clinical trial and a further 28% (n = 60/215) using an official AS protocol. Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 (87 %, n = 173/200) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml (86%, n = 170/198) are the commonest selection criteria. There was a statistically significant association between having an AS protocol and using PSA as an eligibility criterion (p = 0.03). For urologists not following a protocol, 11% do not consider PSA as an eligibility criterion and 81% consider PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml to decide on AS, compared to 2 and 90%, respectively, who adhere to a protocol. Twenty-four per cent of urologists without a protocol do not re-biopsy in comparison to 11% with a protocol (p = 0.026). Gleason score progression trigger the most intervention (n = 168/192, 87%).
conclusionsUrologists not adhering to an AS protocol or participating in a clinical trial appear to apply less rigorous criteria for both eligibility and monitoring in AS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24652265What 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.