ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020
Effect of external beam radiotherapy on second primary cancer risk after radical prostatectomy.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to investigate the effect of radiotherapy (RT) in contemporary patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to RP alone for non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) on the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs).
methodsWithin the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015), we identified patients with PCa as the only or first primary cancer, who underwent RP and RT or RP alone. Cumulative incidence plots and multivariable Cox regression models tested for SPC rate differences according to treatment type: RP and RT vs. RP alone. Subgroup analyses focused on pelvic, primary pelvic, and non-pelvic SPCs, as well as on late SPCs (>5 years after PCa diagnosis).
resultsOf 152 161 patients, 7.1% (n=10 870) received RP and RT. Overall, 6.6 vs. 5.0% developed SPCs after RP and RT vs. RP alone, respectively (p<0.001). Cumulative incidence rates at 10 years after PCa diagnosis for RP and RT vs. RP were 12.0 vs. 8.7% (p<0.001), 2.0 vs. 1.2% (p<0.001), 2.1 vs. 1.3% (p<0.001), and 9.9 vs. 7.4% (p<0.001) for overall SPCs, primary pelvic SPCs, overall pelvic SPCs, and non-pelvic SPCs, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression models revealed an increased risk after RP and RT vs. RP alone for overall (hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; p<0.001), primary pelvic (HR 1.5; p<0.01), pelvic (HR1.4; p<0.001), non-pelvic (HR1.1; p<0.01), late overall (HR 1.2; p=0.01), and late non-pelvic SPCs (HR1.2; p=0.03).
conclusionsRP with RT was associated with moderately increased risk of SPCs compared to RP alone. This observation should be thoroughly discussed at informed consent and considered during followup.
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.