Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29372236›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

Comparison Between Adjuvant and Early-Salvage Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer With Adverse Pathological Features.

William L Hwang, Rahul D Tendulkar, Andrzej Niemierko, Shree Agrawal, Kevin L Stephans, Daniel E Spratt, Jason W Hearn, Bridget F Koontz, W Robert Lee, Jeff M Michalski and 10 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Real world comparison of adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy on cancer-control outcomes after radical prostatectomy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

William L HwangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rahul D TendulkarDepartments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Andrzej NiemierkoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shree AgrawalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Kevin L StephansDepartments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jason W HearnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Bridget F KoontzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
W Robert LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Jeff M MichalskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Thomas M PisanskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Stanley L LiauwDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Matthew C AbramowitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Alan PollackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Drew MoghanakiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
Mitchell S AnscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond.
Robert B DenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Anthony L ZietmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Andrew J StephensonDepartments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Jason A EfstathiouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Prostate cancer with adverse pathological features (ie, pT3 and/or positive margins) after prostatectomy may be managed with adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or surveillance followed by early-salvage radiotherapy (ESRT) for biochemical recurrence. The optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy is unclear. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of postoperative ART and ESRT administered to patients with prostate cancer with adverse pathological features. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional, propensity score-matched cohort study involved 1566 consecutive patients who underwent postprostatectomy ART or ESRT at 10 US academic medical centers between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 2013. Propensity score 1-to-1 matching was used to account for covariates potentially associated with treatment selection. Data were collected from January 1 to September 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2016, to October 21, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Freedom from postirradiation biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastases, and overall survival. All outcomes were measured from date of surgery to address lead-time bias. Results: Of 1566 patients, 1195 with prostate-specific antigen levels of 0.1 to 0.5 ng/mL received ESRT and 371 patients with prostate-specific antigen levels lower than 0.1 ng/mL received ART. The median age (interquartile range) was 60 (55-65) years. After propensity score matching, the median (interquartile range) follow-up after surgery was similar between the ESRT and ART groups (73.3 [44.9-106.6] months vs 65.8 [40-107] months; P = .22). Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with higher freedom from biochemical failure (12-year actuarial rates: 69% [95% CI, 60%-76%] vs 43% [95% CI, 35%-51%]; effect size, 26%), freedom from distant metastases (95% [95% CI, 90%-97%] vs 85% [95% CI, 76%-90%]; effect size, 10%), and overall survival (91% [95% CI, 84%-95%] vs 79% [95% CI, 69%-86%]; effect size, 12%). Adjuvant RT, lower Gleason score and T stage, nodal irradiation, and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy were favorable prognostic features on multivariate analysis for biochemical failure. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the decreased risk of biochemical failure associated with ART remained significant unless more than 56% of patients in the ART group were cured by surgery alone. This threshold is greater than the estimated 12-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 33% to 52% after radical prostatectomy alone, as determined by a contemporary dynamic nomogram. Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with reduced biochemical recurrence, distant metastases, and death for high-risk patients, pending prospective validation. These findings suggest that a greater proportion of patients with prostate cancer who have adverse pathological features may benefit from postprostatectomy ART rather than surveillance followed by ESRT.

Indexed as

Postoperative CareAgedCohort StudiesCombined Modality TherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, AdjuvantSalvage TherapyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29372236
PMCPMC5885162

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.