ArticleWorld journal of urology2015
Outcome of repeated prostatic biopsy during active surveillance: implications for focal therapy.
Article in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionActive surveillance (AS) is commonly recommended for men with localized low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to assess the probability that patients with PCa would develop unfavorable disease features (UDF) while under AS for the purpose of evaluating whether immediate hemiablation therapy (HAT) could bring clinical benefit to selected patients.
methodsIn our cohort of AS patients, 157 were diagnosed with unilateral PCa. Using five different definitions of UDF, patients' data were used to simulate the theoretical outcome whether these patients were managed by immediate unilateral HAT or remained on AS.
resultsThe mean age at the time of diagnosis was 67 years (range 47-81). The median follow-up was 5.4 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3.4-8]. Baseline characteristics included a median PSA value of 5.5 ng/ml (IQR 4.5-7), median number of biopsy taken of 10 (IQR 6-10), and maximum cancer percentage on any core of 10 (IQR 5-20). Of the 157 patients, 144 (92 %) had a Gleason score (GS) of ≤6. Using the whole range of definition for UDF, 10-47 % of patients developed UDF while under AS. Using baseline GS, maximum percentage of cancer on any core, and PSA density, we found significant trends for higher development of UDF for patients under AS.
conclusionThe majority of our patients did not develop UDF while under AS. Our study, thus, suggests that careful patient selection for focal therapy should be performed to avoid subjecting patients to unnecessary treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25387875What 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.