Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594024›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2018

Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study.

Frank-Jan H Drost, Antti Rannikko, Riccardo Valdagni, Tom Pickles, Yoshiyuki Kakehi, Sebastiaan Remmers, Henk G van der Poel, Chris H Bangma, Monique J Roobol, PRIAS study group

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04113811 (Microwave Needle Thermoablation for Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Under the Guidance of MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Organbased Tracking), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT04113811 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Microwave Needle Thermoablation for Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Under the Guidance of MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Organbased Tracking: A Phase 2 Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2019 to 2023Enrolled30ConditionsProstate CancerArmsBiomedical TATO3® Microwave needle thermoablation device (Koelis, Grenoble, France)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Changements dans les pratiques de dépistage de l'antigène prostatique spécifique en Ontario entre 2003 et 2012.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
  13. Changes in the uptake of screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen in Ontario between 2003 to 2012.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

10 authors.

Frank-Jan H DrostDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Antti RannikkoDepartment of Urology, Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Riccardo ValdagniProstate Cancer Program and Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Tom PicklesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
Yoshiyuki KakehiDepartment of Urology, Kagawa University Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan.
Sebastiaan RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk G van der PoelThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
PRIAS study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundActive surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) appears to provide excellent long-term PCa-specific and overall survival. The choice for AS as initial treatment is mainly based on avoiding side effects from invasive treatment; but AS entails regular check-ups and the possibility of still having to switch or deciding to switch to invasive treatment. Here, we assessed the long-term follow-up data from AS in real life clinical practices.

methodsData from the first 500 men, enrolled in PRIAS before July 2008 by 30 centers across 8 countries, were analyzed to provide long-term follow-up results. Men were advised to be regularly examined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, digital rectal examinations, and prostate biopsies. Men were advised to switch to invasive treatment if they had disease reclassification [Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 on biopsy, more than two positive biopsy cores, a stage higher than cT2] or a PSA-doubling time of 0-3 years. We assessed time on AS, outcomes and reasons for discontinuing AS, and rates of potential unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

resultsThe median follow-up time was 6.5 years. During this period, 325 (65%) men discontinued after a median of 2.3 years and 121 (24%) men had no recent (>1 year) data-update after a median of 7.3 years. The remaining 54 (11%) men were confirmed to be still on AS. Most men discontinued based on protocol advice; 38% had other reasons. During follow-up, 838 biopsy sessions were performed of which 79% to 90% did not lead to reclassification, depending on the criteria. Of the 325 discontinued men, 112 subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 126 underwent radiotherapy, 57 switched to watchful waiting (WW) or died, and 30 had another or unknown treatment. RP results were available of 99 men: 34% to 68%, depending on definition, had favorable outcomes; 50% of unfavorable the outcomes occurred in the first 2 years. Of the 30 (6%) men who died, 1 man died due to PCa.

conclusionsThese data, reflecting real life clinical practice, show that more than half of men switched to invasive treatment within 2.3 years, indicating limitations to the extent in which AS is able to reduce the adverse effects of overdiagnosis. Therefore, despite guidelines stating that PCa diagnosis must be uncoupled from treatment, it remains important to avoid overdiagnosing PCa as much as possible.

Indexed as

Active surveillance (AS)limitationslow-risk prostate canceroverdiagnosisovertreatmentprostate-specific antigen screening

Identifiers

PMID29594024
PMCPMC5861273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.