Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667448›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018

Adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy in prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Spanish RECAP database.

A Hervás, A Gómez-Caamaño, M Casaña, A Gómez-Iturriaga, J Pastor, J Jove, J L Mengual, C Gónzalez-San Segundo, J Muñoz

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

A HervásDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. hervasmoron@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7439-1820
A Gómez-CaamañoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
M CasañaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
A Gómez-IturriagaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain.
J PastorDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
J JoveDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain.
J L MengualDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
C Gónzalez-San SegundoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
J MuñozDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Badajoz, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) to salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a cohort of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The primary aim was to comparatively assess 2- and 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS). A secondary aim was to identify predictors of survival. PATIENTS AND

methodsData were acquired from the RECAP database, a population-based prostate cancer registry in Spain. Inclusion criteria included RP (with or without lymphadenectomy) followed by ART or SRT. A total of 702 patients were analyzed. Pre-RT PSA values (>0.5 vs. ≤0.5 ng/ml), pathological stage (T1-2 vs. T3-4), post-surgical Gleason score (≤7 vs. 8-10), margin status (positive vs. negative), hormonal treatment (yes vs. no), and RT dose (≤66 Gy vs. >66 Gy) were evaluated to assess their impact on BRFS.

resultsThe mean patient age in the ART and SRT groups, respectively, was 64 years (range 42-82) and 64.8 years (range 42-82). Median follow-up after RT in the whole sample was 34 months (range 3-141). A total of 702 patients were included: 223 (31.8%) received ART and 479 (68.2%) SRT. BRFS rates (95% CI) in the ART and SRT groups at months 24 and 60 were, respectively: 98.1% (95.9-100.0%) vs. 91.2% (88.2-94.2%) and 84.5% (76.4-92.6%) vs. 74.0% (67.4-80.7%) (p = 0.004). No significant differences in OS were observed (p = 0.053). The following variables were significant predictors of biochemical recurrence in the SRT group: (1) positive surgical margin status (p = 0.049); (2) no hormonotherapy (p = 0.03); (3) total prostate dose ≤66 Gy (p = 0.004); and pre-RT PSA ≥0.5 ng/ml (p = 0.013).

conclusionsThis is the first nationwide study in Spain to evaluate a large cohort of PCa patients treated with RP followed by postoperative RT. ART yielded better 2- and 5-year BRFS rates, although OS was equivalent. These findings are consistent with most other published studies and support ART in patients with adverse prognostic characteristics after radical prostatectomy. Prospective trials are needed to compare immediate ART to early SRT to better determine their relative benefits.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRegistriesSalvage TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesSpainPostoperative treatmentProstate cancerRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28667448

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.