Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26506569›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality.

Satoru Taguchi, Hiroshi Fukuhara, Kenshiro Shiraishi, Keiichi Nakagawa, Teppei Morikawa, Shigenori Kakutani, Yuta Takeshima, Hideyo Miyazaki, Tetsuya Fujimura, Tohru Nakagawa and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Treatment outcomes and late toxicities of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for 1091 Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Article
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Satoru TaguchiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi FukuharaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenshiro ShiraishiDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Keiichi NakagawaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Teppei MorikawaDepartment of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigenori KakutaniDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuta TakeshimaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hideyo MiyazakiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Tetsuya FujimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Tohru NakagawaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruki KumeDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukio HommaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been considered as comparable treatments for localized prostate cancer (PC), it is controversial which treatment is better. The present study aimed to compare outcomes, including mortality, of RP and EBRT for localized PC.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 891 patients with cT1-4N0M0 PC who underwent either RP (n = 569) or EBRT (n = 322) with curative intent at our single institution between 2005 and 2012. Of the EBRT patients, 302 (93.8%) underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Related to these, other-cause mortality (OCM) was also calculated. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis.

resultsMedian follow-up durations were 53 and 45 months, and median ages were 66 and 70 years (P <0.0001), in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. As a whole, significantly better prognoses of the RP group than the EBRT group were observed for both OS and CSS, although OCM was significantly higher in the EBRT group. There was no death from PC in men with low and intermediate D'Amico risks, except one with intermediate-risk in the EBRT group. In high-risk patients, significantly more patients died from PC in the EBRT group than the RP group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the RP group to be an independent prognostic factor for better CSS. On the other hand, the EBRT group had a significantly longer biochemical recurrence-free survival than the RP group.

conclusionsMortality outcomes of both RP and EBRT were generally favorable in low and intermediate risk patients. Improvement of CSS in high risk patients was seen in patients receiving RP over those receiving EBRT.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstateProstatic NeoplasmsSeminal VesiclesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26506569
PMCPMC4624690
OpenAlexW1947174062

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.