Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27136742›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2016

Efficacy of post-operative radiation in a prostatectomy cohort adjusted for clinical and genomic risk.

A E Ross, R B Den, K Yousefi, B J Trock, J Tosoian, E Davicioni, D J S Thompson, V Choeurng, Z Haddad, P T Tran and 10 more

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

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Prognostic significance of a negative PSMA PET/CT in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Are localized prostate cancer biomarkers useful in the clinical practice?Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2018
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

20 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

A E RossJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
R B DenSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
K YousefiGenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
B J TrockJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J TosoianJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
E DavicioniGenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
D J S ThompsonEMMES Canada, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
V ChoeurngGenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Z HaddadGenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
P T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
E J TrabulsiSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
L G GomellaSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
C D LallasSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
F AbdollahVattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
F Y FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
E A KleinGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
A P DickerSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
S J FreedlandDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Center for Integrated Research on Cancer and Lifestyle, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
R J KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
E M SchaefferDepartment of Urology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Thomas Jefferson University · USGenome British Columbia · CAJohns Hopkins Hospital · USCleveland Clinic · USDurham VA Medical Center · USHenry Ford Hospital · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USWinnMed · US

Funding

Structure-Functions Studies of Twist1-induced Radioresistance in Lung CancerR01CA166348 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TRAN, PHUOC T. · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, there have been no published trials examining the impact of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in the post-operative setting for prostate cancer (PCa). We conducted a retrospective, comparative study of post-operative radiation following radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with pT3 disease or positive margins (adverse pathological features, APF).

methods422 PCa men treated at four institutions with RP and having APF were analyzed with a primary end point of metastasis. Adjuvant radiation treatment (ART, n=111), minimal residual disease (MRD) SRT (n=70) and SRT (n=83) were defined by PSA levels of <0.2, 0.2-0.49 and ⩾0.5 ng ml(-1), respectively, before radiation therapy (RT) initiation. Remaining 157 men who did not receive additional therapy before metastasis formed the no RT arm. Clinical-genomic risk was assessed by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical (CAPRA-S) and Decipher. Cox regression was used to evaluate the impact of treatment on outcome.

resultsDuring the study follow-up, 37 men developed metastasis with a median follow-up of 8 years. Both CAPRA-S and Decipher had independent predictive value on multivariable analysis for metastasis (P<0.05). Adjusting for clinical-genomic risk, SRT and no RT had hazard ratios of 4.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-15.47) and 5.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.59-18.44) for metastasis compared with ART, respectively. No significant difference was observed between MRD-SRT and ART (P=0.28). Men with low-to-intermediate CAPRA-S and low Decipher value have a low rate of metastatic events regardless of treatment selection. In contrast, men with high CAPRA-S and Decipher benefit from ART, however the cumulative incidence of metastasis remains high.

conclusionsThe decision as to the timing and need for additional local therapy following RP is nuanced and requires providers and patients to balance risks of morbidity with improved oncological outcomes. Post-RP treatment can be safely avoided for men who are low risk by clinical-genomic risk, whereas those at high risk should favor enrollment in clinical trials.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPostoperative PeriodPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, AdjuvantBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID27136742
PMCPMC5411670
OpenAlexW2345560358

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.