Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25121769›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Changhao Chen, Tianxin Lin, Yu Zhou, Doudou Li, Kewei Xu, Zhihua Li, Xinxiang Fan, Guangzheng Zhong, Wang He, Xu Chen and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Management of prostate cancer patients following radiation therapy after radical surgery referred from urology to radiation oncology departments in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2016
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Changhao ChenDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Tianxin LinDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Yu ZhouDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Doudou LiDepartment of Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Kewei XuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Zhihua LiDepartment of Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Xinxiang FanDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Guangzheng ZhongDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Wang HeDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Xu ChenDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Xianyin HeDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jian HuangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn men with adverse prognostic factors (APFs) after radical prostatectomy (RP), the most appropriate timing to administer radiotherapy remains a subject for debate. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic strategies: adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library and performed the meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective comparative studies assessing the prognostic factors of ART and SRT.

resultsBetween May 1998 and July 2012, 2 matched control studies and 16 retrospective studies including a total of 2629 cases were identified (1404 cases for ART and 1185 cases for SRT). 5-year biochemical failure free survival (BFFS) for ART was longer than that for SRT (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.46; p<0.00001, I(2) = 0%). 3-year BFFS was significantly longer in the ART (HR: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.52; p<0.00001, I(2) = 0%). Overall survival (OS) was also better in the ART (RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.68; p<0.00001, I(2) = 0%), as did disease free survival (DFS) (RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.66; p<0.00001, I(2)  = 0%). Exploratory subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis revealed the similar results with original analysis.

conclusionART therapy offers a safe and efficient alternative to SRT with longer 3-year and 5-year BFFS, better OS and DFS. Our recommendation is to suggest ART for patients with APFs and may reduce the need for SRT. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, future well-designed RCTs are awaited to confirm and update this analysis.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesCombined Modality TherapyDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSalvage Therapy

Identifiers

PMID25121769
PMCPMC4133270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.