Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31900963›Full record

ArticleBJU international2020

The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression.

Richard J Bryant, Jon Oxley, Grace J Young, Janet A Lane, Chris Metcalfe, Michael Davis, Emma L Turner, Richard M Martin, John R Goepel, Murali Varma and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Update on PSMA-based Prostate Cancer Imaging.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard J BryantNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8330-9251
Jon OxleyDepartment of Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4348-0273
Grace J YoungBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Janet A LaneBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michael DavisBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emma L TurnerBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard M MartinBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
John R GoepelDepartment of Pathology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Murali VarmaDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
David F GriffithsDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Ken GrigorDepartment of Pathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Nick MayerDepartment of Pathology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Anne Y WarrenDepartment of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Selina BhattaraiDepartment of Pathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
John DormerDepartment of Pathology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Malcolm MasonSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
John StaffurthDivision of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Eleanor WalshBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Derek J RosarioAcademic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
James W F CattoAcademic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David E NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jenny L DonovanBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Freddie C HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
ProtecT Study Group
University of Bristol · GBAt Bristol · GBCardiff University · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBMedical Protective · USNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBRoyal Hallamshire Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15064Cancer Research UK 22748Cancer Research UK 24432Cancer Research UK 29019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models.

resultsThe findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins.

conclusionsWe demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFollow-Up StudiesHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentTime FactorsKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenpathologyProstate cancerrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID31900963
PMCPMC7187290
OpenAlexW2997281924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.