ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2021
A single-center long-term experience of active surveillance for prostate cancer: 15 years of follow-up.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lack of real-world evidence on active surveillance in Chinese patients with prostate cancer: insights from a 10-year cohort and a physician survey.BMC urology · 2026Observational
- Clinical utility of transperineal template-guided mapping prostate biopsy in a selection of patients under active surveillance and confirmation of patients with negative biopsy for prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Germline DNA-Repair Genes and HOXB13 Mutations in Korean Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Data from a Large Korean Cohort.The world journal of men's health · 2023Article
- Polygenic risk score for tumor aggressiveness and early-onset prostate cancer in Asians.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Temporal changes of PIRADS scoring by radiologists and correlation to radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes.Prostate international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe a single-center 15-year experience of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent AS between 2003 and 2018. One hundred fifty-three patients were selected according to the following criteria: (1) biopsy Gleason pattern ≤3+4 with (2) ≤two positive core(s) and (3) ≤50% core involvement, clinical-stage ≤T2a, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/mL. Follow-up included PSA measurement every six months, prostate biopsies at one year and then every 2-3 years, and MRI every year. Intervention was triggered by (1) Gleason score (GS) upgrading, (2) >two positive cores, or (3) PSA doubling-time in <3 years.
resultsMean (±standard deviation) follow-up was 36.4 (±31.9) months. Ninety-three (60.8%) and 20 (13.1%) patients received second and third biopsies, respectively. Seventy-two patients (47.1%) discontinued AS for various reasons (59, intervention; 13, follow-up loss). Reasons for intervention consisted of GS upgrading (42.4%), >two positive cores (8.5%), abnormal PSA kinetics (11.9%), and patient preference (37.3%). Notably, 12 (25.5%) patients had pathologic GS ≥4+3 (unfavorable disease) and 3 (6.4%) patients had pathologic stage ≥T3a at radical prostatectomy. Median time to treatment-free survival was 19.5 months. Of the 59 patients who switched to intervention, biochemical recurrence was reported in only one (0.7%) patient.
conclusionsAS is an available option for low-risk PCa in carefully selected patients. Further larger prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal criteria for AS, especially in Korean PCa patients.
Indexed as
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.