ArticleKorean journal of urology2015
Comparison of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy.
Article in Korean journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene signatures predict biochemical recurrence-free survival in primary prostate cancer patients after radical therapy.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical verification of 18F-DCFPyL PET-detected lesions in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.PloS one · 2020Article
- Cause of Death in Korean Men with Prostate Cancer: an Analysis of Time Trends in a Nationwide Cohort.Journal of Korean medical science · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent RP or RT as primary definitive treatment from 2007 were enrolled for this study. They were divided into two groups; the low-intermediate risk group and the high risk group according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We compared differences such as age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, follow-up duration, clinical T staging, and BCR. Their BCR-free survival rates were analyzed.
resultsA total of 165 patients were enrolled. There were 115 patients in the low-intermediate risk. Among them, 88 received RP and 27 underwent RT. BCR occurred in 9 of the RP patients (10.2%) and 3 of the RT patients (11.1%). For the high risk group, 50 patients were included. RP was performed in 25 patients and RT in 25 patients. BCR was observed in 4 of the RP patients (16%) and 12 of the RT patients (48%). There were no differences in BCR-free survival for the low-intermediate group (p=0.765). For the high risk group, the RP group had a higher BCR free survival rate (p=0.032).
conclusionsNo difference of BCR and BCR-free survival was seen in the low-intermediate risk group but lower BCR and better BCR-free survival were observed for patients that received RP in the high risk group. RP should be a more strongly considered option when deciding the treatment method for selected high risk patients.
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.