Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34154899›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2022

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort.

Christopher J D Wallis, Li-Ching Huang, Zhiguo Zhao, David F Penson, Tatsuki Koyama, Ralph Conwill, Jacob E Tallman, Michael Goodman, Ann S Hamilton, Xiao-Cheng Wu and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

19 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher J D WallisDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: wallis.cjd@gmail.com.
Li-Ching HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Zhiguo ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
David F PensonDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Tatsuki KoyamaDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Ralph ConwillOffice of Patient and Community Education, Patient Advocacy Program, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Jacob E TallmanDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.
Ann S HamiltonDepartment of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Xiao-Cheng WuDepartment of Epidemiology, Louisiana State University New Orleans School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA.
Lisa E PaddockDepartment of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ.
Antoinette StroupDepartment of Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Health, New Brunswick, NJ.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Mia HashibeDepartment of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Brock B O'NeilDepartment of Urology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT.
Sherrie H KaplanDepartment of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA.
Sheldon GreenfieldDepartment of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA.
Daniel A BarocasDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Karen E HoffmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Center, Houston, TX.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Utah · USEmory University · USLouisiana State University · USOffice of Education · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Localized Prostate CancerR01HS019356 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PENSON, DAVID F. · 2010 to 2010
$7.6M
Surgical Oncology Training GrantT32CA106183 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI James Richard Goldenring · 2004 to 2026
$6.0M
10-year Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Treatments for Prostate CancerR01CA230352 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BAROCAS, DANIEL A · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
Comparative Effectiveness of Modern Therapies for Localized Prostate CancerR01HS022640 · AHRQ · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PENSON, DAVID F. · 2013 to 2013
$1.8M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS019356AHRQ HHS R01 HS022640NCI NIH HHS R01 CA230352NCI NIH HHS T32 CA106183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

results587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue.

conclusionThis prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedCohort StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeCohort studiesPatient reported outcome measuresProspective studiesProstatic neoplasmsSurvey and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34154899
PMCPMC9933913
OpenAlexW3173515464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.