ArticleProstate international2016
Australian patterns of prostate cancer care: Are they evolving?
Article in Prostate international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disease mapping: Geographic differences in population rates of interventional treatment for prostate cancer in Australia.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Cambridge Prognostic Groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study.BMC medicine · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the changing landscape of prostate cancer diagnosis and management from 2005 to 2016.Prostate international · 2017Article
- The Effect of Evolving Strategies in the Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Data from 2005 to 2014 in a Multicenter Setting.Advances in therapy · 2017Article
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: A guide to the guidelines.Prostate international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproaches to prostate cancer (PCa) care have changed in recent years out of concern for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Despite these changes, many patients continue to undergo some form of curative treatment and with a growing perception among multidisciplinary clinicians that more aggressive treatments are being favored. This study examines patterns of PCa care in Australia, focusing on current rates of screening and aggressive interventions that consist of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND).
methodsHealth services data were used to assess Australian men undergoing PCa screening and treatment from 2001 to 2014. Age-specific rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening were calculated. Ratios of radical prostatectomy (RP) with PLND to RP without PLND, and HDR brachytherapy to low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy were determined by state jurisdictions.
resultsFrom 2008, the rate of PSA screening trended downward significantly with year for all age ranges (P < 0.02) except men aged ≥ 85 (P = 0.56). PLND rates for 2008-2014 were lower than rates for 2001-2007 across all states and territories. From 2008 to 2014, PLND was performed ≥ 2.7 times more frequently in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory than in other jurisdictions. Since 2007, brachytherapy practice across Australia has evolved towards a relatively low use of HDR brachytherapy (ratio of HDR to LDR brachytherapy < 0.5 for all jurisdictions except the Australian Capital Territory).
conclusionRates of PLND and HDR brachytherapy for PCa have declined in Australia, providing evidence for the effect of stage migration due to widespread PSA screening. Currently, PSA screening rates remain high among older men, which may expose them to unnecessary investigations and treatment-related morbidity.
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.