ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2020
Temporal trends in the number of men electing for conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in the United States.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcurrent with the decrease in the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa), the proportion of men with low-risk PCa managed conservatively (active surveillance or watchful waiting) has increased in the United States. We aimed to determine whether this increase is a result of more men being managed conservatively or rather a higher proportion of the diminishing number of low-risk PCa managed this way.
methodsThe SEER "Prostate Watchful Waiting Database" identified men managed initially with conservative management between 2010 and 2016. Men > 40 years old who were diagnosed with low-risk (Gleason score 3 + 3, T1-T2a, PSA level < 10 ng/mL) PCa were included. Age-standardized and age-specific PCa incidence and conservative management rates were calculated per 100,000 man-years. The annual percent change in rates for the entire time period was also calculated.
resultsThe incidence of low-risk PCa declined by 11.8% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.4% to -8.0%), whereas the number of men assigned to conservative management for low-risk disease did not increase significantly, rising by +3.7% per year (95% CI -0.7% to 8.4%). In age-specific analysis, the number of men < 60 years and those who were 60-69 years managed conservatively increased by +9.6% per year (95% CI 2.7% to 16.9%) and 4.5% per year (95% CI 0.1% to 9.1%), respectively, whereas the number of men ≥ 70 years electing conservative management remained stable at -4% per year (95% CI -11.2% to 3.7%).
conclusionsThe number of men electing conservative management has remained largely stable between 2010 and 2016, despite an increase in the proportion of low-risk PCa managed in this manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32661433What 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.