ArticleTurkish journal of urology2013
Our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer patients.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining and Measuring Adherence in Observational Studies Assessing Outcomes of Real-world Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.European urology oncology · 2021Pooled it
- The importance of active surveillance, and immediate re-biopsy in low-risk prostate cancer: The largest series from Turkey.Turkish journal of urology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveActive surveillance has become a management option for low-risk prostate cancer patients, while keeping the curative treatment option available. In this study, we evaluated the our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose an active surveillance protocol were followed with PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations, and TRUS-guided biopsies. The patients' data and rebiopsy results were evaluated. The results were compared with the results of the patients who had definitive treatment.
resultsForty-one patients on active surveillance and 34 patients with at least one rebiopsy were included in the study. Twenty-seven patients who had more than one rebiopsy were followed for an average of 27.7 (12-78) months. Twelve patients (44.4%) had undergone definitive treatment including radical prostatectomy (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=3). There were 17 patients under surveillance after a second biopsy, and 9 (33%) of them had a third biopsy. Among these 9 patients, 7 patients were kept under surveillance, and 2 (7%) them had a fourth biopsy. Active surveillance of 15 out of 17 patients who have not undergone definitive treatment is still ongoing.
conclusionActive surveillance is a treatment option refrains low-risk prostate cancer patients from the complications of an early or unnecessary definitive treatment and related reduction in the quality of their lives. while keeping the curative treatment option available. Active surveillance can be applied safely with the appropriate patient selection, regular examinations and tests.
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.