Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33396923›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Should We Reconsider the Necessity of a Refinement of Prostate Cancer Risk Classification and Radiotherapy Treatment Strategy? Experiences from a Retrospective Analysis of Data from a Single Institution.

Viktória Temesfői, Róbert Herczeg, Zoltán Lőcsei, Klára Sebestyén, Zsolt Sebestyén, László Mangel, Miklós Damásdi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 73% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Viktória TemesfőiLab-on-a-Chip Research Group, János Szentágothai Research Center, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 20, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-2990-6258
Róbert HerczegBioinformatics Research Group, Genomic and Bioinformatics Core Facility, János Szentágothai Research Center, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 20, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
Zoltán LőcseiDepartment of Oncotherapy, Clinical Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, Édesanyák útja 10, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
Klára SebestyénDepartment of Oncotherapy, Clinical Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, Édesanyák útja 10, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
Zsolt SebestyénDepartment of Oncotherapy, Clinical Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, Édesanyák útja 10, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
László MangelDepartment of Oncotherapy, Clinical Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, Édesanyák útja 10, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
Miklós DamásdiUrology Clinic, Clinical Centre, Medical School, University of Pécs, Munkácsy Mihály utca 2, H-7621 Pécs, Hungary.
University of Pecs · HU

Funding

European Commission EFOP 3.6.1-16-2016-00004European Commission FIKP II.2.European Commission GINOP-2.2.1-15-2017-00067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiation therapy has undergone significant technical development in the past decade. However, the complex therapy of intermediate-risk patients with organ-confined prostate carcinoma still poses many questions. Our retrospective study investigated the impact of selected components of the treatment process including radiotherapy, hormone deprivation, risk classification, and patients' response to therapy.

methodsThe impact of delivered dose, planning accuracy, duration of hormone deprivation, risk classification, and the time to reach prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir state were analyzed among ninety-nine individuals afflicted with organ-confined disease. Progression was defined as a radiological or biochemical relapse within five years from radiotherapy treatment.

resultsWe found that 58.3% of the progressive population consisted of intermediate-risk patients. The progression rate in the intermediate group was higher (21.9%) than in the high-risk population (12.1%). Dividing the intermediate group, according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommendations, resulted in the non-favorable subgroup having the highest rate of progression (33.3%) and depicting the lowest percentage of progression-free survival (66.7%).

conclusionExtended pelvic irradiation on the regional lymph nodes may be necessary for the ISUP Grade 3 subgroup, similarly to the high-risk treatment. Therapy optimization regarding the intermediate-risk population based on the ISUP subgrouping suggestions is highly recommended in the treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer.

Indexed as

androgen deprivation therapyprostate cancerradiotherapytherapy optimization

Identifiers

PMID33396923
PMCPMC7795563
OpenAlexW3113841970

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.