ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2018
Survival outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer in patients aged < 50 years after local therapy in the contemporary US population.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicopathological characteristics of localized prostate cancer in younger men aged ≤ 50 years treated with radical prostatectomy in the PSA era: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Early-Onset Prostate Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Biology, Clinical Features, Management, and Early Detection.MedComm · 2026Review
- External validation of a magnetic resonance imaging-based algorithm for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension in prostate cancer.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Which treatment is best for patients with AJCC stage IV bladder cancer?International urology and nephrology · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess survival outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) in patients aged < 50 years after local therapy (LT), as compared to that in the older patients (≥ 50 years). Moreover, effectiveness of postoperative radiation therapy (PRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) was also assessed in patients aged < 50 years.
methodsWithin the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results database (2004-2014), non-metastatic cT3-4 LAPC patients treated with LT (RP, RT or RP+RT) were identified. After propensity score matching (PSM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), overall survival (OS), and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates were assessed. Multivariable competing risk regression (MVA CRR) model was also used in our analysis.
results1507 younger (< 50 years) and 34833 older (≥ 50 years) LAPC patients treated with LT were identified. Younger patients with LAPC had overall more aggressive disease features than their older counterparts. After PSM, younger patients yielded higher cumulative CSM rates than the older patients (P = 0.046). However, OS and cumulative OCM rates were significantly higher (P = 0.038 and P < 0.0001, respectively) in the older cohort. In the MVA CRR model, younger patients yielded higher CSM (P = 0.02). Specifically, younger patients resulted in higher CSM in Gleason score 8-10, cT3b/4 stage, cN1 stage, and patients treated with RP. No statistically significant differences were found in patients treated with RP versus RP+PRT in all parameters.
conclusionsLAPC patients aged < 50 years yielded higher CSM after LT, specifically after RP, compared with the older counterparts (≥ 50 years). No significant differences were observed in RP versus RP+PRT regarding survival outcomes in our analysis.
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.