Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26160006›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2016

Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer.

Lionne D F Venderbos, Monique J Roobol, Chris H Bangma, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Leonard P Bokhorst, Daan Nieboer, Rebecka Godtman, Jonas Hugosson, Theodorus van der Kwast, Ewout W Steyerberg

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2016
    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

10 authors.

Lionne D F VenderbosDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1710, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.venderbos@erasmusmc.nl.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1710, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1710, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1710, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Leonard P BokhorstDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Na1710, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Daan NieboerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rebecka GodtmanDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
Jonas HugossonDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
Theodorus van der KwastDepartment of Pathology, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo study whether probabilistic selection by the use of a nomogram could improve patient selection for active surveillance (AS) compared to the various sets of rule-based AS inclusion criteria currently used.

methodsWe studied Dutch and Swedish patients participating in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We explored which men who were initially diagnosed with cT1-2, Gleason 6 (Gleason pattern ≤3 + 3) had histopathological indolent PCa at RP [defined as pT2, Gleason pattern ≤3 and tumour volume (TV) ≤0.5 or TV ≤ 1.3 ml, and TV no part of criteria (NoTV)]. Rule-based selection was according to the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), Klotz, and Johns Hopkins criteria. An existing nomogram to define probability-based selection for AS was refitted for the TV1.3 and NoTV indolent PCa definitions.

results619 of 864 men undergoing RP had cT1-2, Gleason 6 disease at diagnosis and were analysed. Median follow-up was 8.9 years. 229 (37%), 356 (58%), and 410 (66%) fulfilled the TV0.5, TV1.3, and NoTV indolent PCa criteria at RP. Discriminating between indolent and significant disease according to area under the curve (AUC) was: TV0.5: 0.658 (PRIAS), 0.523 (Klotz), 0.642 (Hopkins), 0.685 (nomogram). TV1.3: 0.630 (PRIAS), 0.550 (Klotz), 0.615 (Hopkins), 0.646 (nomogram). NoTV: 0.603 (PRIAS), 0.530 (Klotz), 0.589 (Hopkins), 0.608 (nomogram).

conclusionsThe performance of a nomogram, the Johns Hopkins, and PRIAS rule-based criteria are comparable. Because the nomogram allows individual trade-offs, it could be a good alternative to rigid rule-based criteria.

Indexed as

NomogramsPatient SelectionWatchful WaitingEuropeFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMorbidityNeoplasm StagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSurvival RateTime FactorsTumor BurdenActive surveillanceInclusion criteria active surveillanceNomogramProstatic neoplasmRisk stratificationSelection for active surveillance

Identifiers

PMID26160006
PMCPMC4729867

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.