ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
External validation of genomic classifier-based risk-stratification tool to identify candidates for adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testosterone-Sparing Treatment Strategies for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Prostate cancers with distinct transcriptional programs in Black and White men.Genome medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo externally validate a Genomic Classifier (GC) based risk-stratification nomogram identifying candidates who would benefit from adjuvant radiation (aRT) therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP).
methodsWe identified 350 patients who underwent RP, between 2013 and 2018, and had adverse pathological features (positive margin, and/or pT3a or higher) on final pathology. Genomic profile was available for all these men. The clinical recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The external validity of the nomogram was tested using the concordance index (c-index), calibration plot, and decision curve analysis.
resultsThe median follow-up of the cohort was 26.5 months. Overall, 14% of the patients received aRT. During the follow-up period, 3.4% of the patients developed metastasis. Overall 3-year metastasis-free survival was 95% (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The c-index of the nomogram was 0.84. The calibration of the model was favorable. Decision-curve analysis showed a positive net benefit for probabilities ranging between 0.01 and 0.09, with the highest difference at threshold probability around 0.05. At that threshold, the net benefit is 0.06 for the model and 0 for treating all the patients.
conclusionOur report is the first to confirm the validity of this genomic-based risk-stratification tool in identifying men who might benefit from aRT after RP. As such, it can be a useful instrument to be incorporated in shared decision making on whether administration of aRT will lead to a clinically meaningful benefit. Such a model can also be useful for patients' classification in future clinical trials.
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.