Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32697048›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2020

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.

Yu Zheng, Sharron X Lin, Shulin Wu, Douglas M Dahl, Michael L Blute, Wei-De Zhong, Xing Zhou, Chin-Lee Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Smoking and the risk of prostate cancer: a review of risk and disease progression.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yu ZhengDepartment of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Sharron X LinDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Shulin WuDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Douglas M DahlDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Michael L BluteDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Wei-De ZhongDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Clinical Molecular Medicine and Diagnostics, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0430-2845
Xing ZhouDepartment of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Chin-Lee WuDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0444-0068
Harvard University · USGuangzhou First People's Hospital · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWith the rapid increase in younger age prostate cancer (PCa) patients, the impact of younger age on decision-making for PCa treatment needs to be revaluated in the new era. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to October 2019 to identify the eligible radical prostatectomy (RP) studies focusing on understanding the impact of age on clinicopathological features and oncological prognosis in patients with localized PCa in PSA era. Meta-analyses were conducted using available hazard ratios (HRs) from both univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsTwenty-six studies including 391 068 patients with RP treatments from the PSA era were included. Of these studies, age of 50 years old (age50) is the most commonly used cut-off age to separate the younger patient group (including either age < 50 or age ≤ 50) from the older patient group. In these studies, the incidence of younger patients varied between 2.6% and 16.6% with a median of 8.3%. Younger patients consistently showed more favorable clinicopathological features correlated with better BCR prognosis. Meta-analyses showed a 1.38-fold improved BCR survival of younger patients in multivariate analysis. Among the high-risk PCa patients, younger age was independently associated with worse oncological outcomes in multivariate analyses.

conclusionIn this study, we found younger age correlated with favorable clinicopathological characteristics and better BCR prognosis in low- to intermediate-risk patients. In high-risk group patients, younger patients often showed significantly worse oncological outcomes. Our study results suggest that age 50 could be used as a practical cut-off age to separate younger age patients from older age PCa patients.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyAgedAged, 80 and overAge of OnsetClinical Decision-MakingHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigenactive surveillancemeta-analysisprognosisprostate cancerradical prostatectomysystematic reviewyounger age

Identifiers

PMID32697048
PMCPMC7520296
OpenAlexW3043866811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.