ArticleOncotarget2017
Comparison of efficacy between brachytherapy and penectomy in patients with penile cancer: a meta-analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ-sparing radiotherapy in penile cancer: therapeutic approaches.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- What Is the Most Effective Management of the Primary Tumor in Men with Invasive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Available Treatment Options and Their Outcomes.European urology open science · 2022Review
- RGS20 Promotes Tumor Progression through Modulating PI3K/AKT Signaling Activation in Penile Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- SHCBP1 regulates STAT3/c-Myc signaling activation to promote tumor progression in penile cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2020Article
- Aberrant CEACAM19 expression is associated with metastatic phenotype in penile cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
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
We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of brachytherapy and penectomy in patients with penile cancer. We searched the published articles in the PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases up to March 20, 2017. Twenty-two studies entered the final analyses. We used five-year overall survival rate, five-year local control rate, disease-free progression and lymph node positive rate to assess the efficacy. The meta-analysis found that patients who received penectomy had higher five-year local control rate (85% vs 80%, odds ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.90), five-year disease-free progression rate (77% vs 72%, odds ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.93) and lymph node positive rates (24% vs 20%, odds ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.98) than brachytherapy. No significant difference was observed for two group in five-year overall survival rate (76% vs 74%, odds ratios = 1.11 with the 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.36). Both of penectomy and brachytherapy can improve the survival status. Penectomy provided better control efficacy, and not improved the survival status compared with brachytherapy solely. However, further research was required because of retrospective nature and potential bias of the data.
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.