Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27618951›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2017

Increasing use of radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer in the USA and Germany: a comparative population-based study.

B Hager, K Kraywinkel, B Keck, A Katalinic, M Meyer, S R Zeissig, R Scheufele, M P Wirth, J Huber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors.

B HagerDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
K KraywinkelNational Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
B KeckDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
A KatalinicInstitute of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
M MeyerPopulation-Based Cancer Registry, Bavaria, Nuremberg, Germany.
S R ZeissigCancer Registry Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, Germany.
R ScheufeleCommon Cancer Registry of The Federal States Berlin/Brandenburg/Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Sachsen-Anhalt/Sachsen/Thüringen, Berlin, Germany.
M P WirthDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
J HuberDepartment of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7243-8958

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent guidelines do not recommend a preferred treatment modality for locally advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the study was to compare treatment patterns found in the USA and Germany and to analyze possible trends over time.

methodsWe compared 'Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results' (SEER) data (USA) with reports from four German federal epidemiological cancer registries (Eastern Germany, Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein), both from 2004 to 2012. We defined locally advanced prostate cancer as clinical stage T3 or T4. Exclusion criteria were metastatic disease and age over 79 years.

resultsWe identified 9127 (USA) and 11 051 (Germany) patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. The share was 2.1% in the USA compared with 6.0% in Germany (P<0.001). In the United States, the utilization of radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) was comparably high with 42.0% (RT) and 42.8% (RP). In Germany, the major treatment option was RP with 36.7% followed by RT with 22.1%. During the study period, the use of RP increased in both countries (USA P=0.001 and Germany P=0.003), whereas RT numbers declined (USA P=0.003 and Germany P=0.002). The share of adjuvant RT (aRT) was similar in both countries (USA 21.7% vs Germany 20.7%).

conclusionWe found distinctive differences in treating locally advanced prostate cancer between USA and Germany, but similar trends over time. In the last decade, a growing number of patients underwent RP as a possible first step within a multimodal concept.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'ProstatectomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPopulation SurveillanceProstatic NeoplasmsRegistriesSEER ProgramUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27618951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.