ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2014
Controversies associated with the evaluation of elderly men with localized prostate cancer when considering radical prostatectomy.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of patients older than 75 years with non-metastatic prostate cancer.Asian journal of urology · 2017Article
- Controversies in managing localized prostate cancer: introduction.International journal of clinical oncology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of prostate cancer in Japan is increasing due to both the spread of screening and the rapid aging of the population. Most of this increase is expected to be attributable to the increase in the elderly male population. The management of various types of cancers in elderly patients is of growing interest, but several problems are encountered when evaluating elderly patients with localized prostate cancer, especially when radical prostatectomy (RP) is under consideration. First, life expectancy, health status, lifestyle, and available treatment modalities differ between regions, countries, and individuals, which potentially affects the choice of treatment options by both physicians and patients. Second, life expectancy is key when considering indications for RP. Many tools are available for predicting life expectancy, but their utilization varies greatly among physicians. Third, the malignant potential of latent or incidentally detected prostate cancer in Japanese men might be higher than those in other countries, and elderly men with prostate cancer are likely to have high-risk or locally advanced tumors, which may in turn support the more frequent use of radical treatments in elderly men. Fourth, patients treated with RP are likely to have fewer and less severe comorbidities than those treated with other treatments, which would complicate the comparison of outcomes. Fifth, the balance between survival benefits and adverse effects is an important influence on indications for RP. If robot-assisted laparoscopic RP can reduce the risk of adverse effects, indications for RP could be altered. Sixth, although several general health status screening tools such as the Geriatric 8 are available, no screening tools specialized for localized or Japanese prostate cancer patients exist. In conclusion, further study is needed to clarify the management of elderly Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer, because prostate cancer often requires different considerations to other types of cancer.
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.