Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28440262›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology

Risk of complications and urinary incontinence following cytoreductive prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study.

Dae Keun Kim, Jaspreet Singh Parihar, Young Suk Kwon, Sinae Kim, Brian Shinder, Nara Lee, Nicholas Farber, Thomas Ahlering, Douglas Skarecky, Bertram Yuh and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Dae Keun KimDepartment of Urology, CHA Seoul Station Medical Center, CHA University, CHA Medical School, Seoul 04637, Korea.
Jaspreet Singh PariharSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Young Suk KwonSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Sinae KimSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Brian ShinderSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Nara LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Nicholas FarberSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Thomas AhleringDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange 92687, USA.
Douglas SkareckyDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange 92687, USA.
Bertram YuhDivision of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte 91010, USA.
Nora RuelDivision of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte 91010, USA.
Wun-Jae KimDepartment of Urology, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju 28644, Korea.
Koon Ho RhaDepartment of Urology and Urological Science Institute, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Isaac Yi KimSection of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USCHA University Gangnam Medical Center · KRChungbuk National University · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Tracie Saunders · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence has suggested that cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) allows superior oncologic control when compared to current standard of care androgen deprivation therapy alone. However, the safety and benefit of cytoreduction in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has not been proven. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of complications following CRP in men newly diagnosed with mPCa. A total of 68 patients who underwent CRP from 2006 to 2014 at four tertiary surgical centers were compared to 598 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Urinary incontinence was defined as the use of any pad. CRP had longer operative times (200 min vs 140 min, P < 0.0001) and higher estimated blood loss (250 ml vs 125 ml, P < 0.0001) compared to the control group. However, both overall (8.82% vs 5.85%) and major complication rates (4.41% vs 2.17%) were comparable between the two groups. Importantly, urinary incontinence rate at 1-year after surgery was significantly higher in the CRP group (57.4% vs 90.8%, P < 0.0001). Univariate logistic analysis showed that the estimated blood loss was the only independent predictor of perioperative complications both in the unadjusted model (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.02-1.37; P = 0.025) and surgery type-adjusted model (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.01-1.36; P = 0.034). In conclusion, CRP is more challenging than radical prostatectomy and associated with a notably higher incidence of urinary incontinence. Nevertheless, CRP is a technically feasible and safe surgery for selecting PCa patients who present with node-positive or bony metastasis when performed by experienced surgeons. A prospective, multi-institutional clinical trial is currently underway to verify this concept.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPostoperative ComplicationsPredictive Value of TestsProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID28440262
PMCPMC5753561
OpenAlexW2563765314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.