Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30102188›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018

Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiation Therapy and Combined External Beam With Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Daniel J Lee, Daniel A Barocas, Zhiguo Zhao, Li-Ching Huang, Matthew J Resnick, Tatsuki Koyoma, Ralph Conwill, Dan McCollum, Matthew R Cooperberg, Michael Goodman and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Biochemical failure and toxicity in treatment with brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy compared with radical prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: NO.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

19 authors.

Daniel J LeeDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: daniel.lee.1@vanderbilt.edu.
Daniel A BarocasDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Zhiguo ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Li-Ching HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Matthew J ResnickDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tatsuki KoyomaDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Ralph ConwillProstate Cancer Patient Advocate, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dan McCollumProstate Cancer Patient Advocate, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sheldon GreenfieldCenter for Health Policy Research and Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Ann S HamiltonDepartment of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mia HashibeDepartment of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sherrie H KaplanHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Lisa E PaddockRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Antoinette M StroupRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Xiao-Cheng WuSchool of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
David F PensonTennessee Valley Veterans Administration Health System, Nashville, Tennessee.
Karen E HoffmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Localized Prostate CancerR01HS019356 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PENSON, DAVID F. · 2010 to 2010
$7.6M
Comparative Effectiveness of Modern Therapies for Localized Prostate CancerR01HS022640 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PENSON, DAVID F. · 2013 to 2013
$1.8M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS019356AHRQ HHS R01 HS022640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.

resultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.

conclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRadiation DosageAgedHormonesHumansIntestinesMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalSurvival AnalysisUrinary IncontinenceHormones

Identifiers

PMID30102188
PMCPMC7492102

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.