ArticleEuropean urology open science2021
Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non-protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up.
Article in European urology open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prospective Implementation and Early Outcomes of a Risk-stratified Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Follow-up Protocol.European urology open science · 2023Article
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
backgroundActive surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for initial management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Although many AS protocols exist, there is little evidence to support one over another.
objectiveTo assess whether there is difference in overall (OS), prostate cancer-specific (CSS), metastasis-free (MFS), or treatment-free (TFS) survival between a strict (Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance [PRIAS]) and a loose (European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]) AS protocol. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsThis study included two cohorts of men ( OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS, CSS, MFS, and TFS were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: As expected, due to the difference in median follow-up time between the cohorts, a difference in the absolute number of events was seen. However, no difference in any of the survival outcomes was evident in the Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis. Furthermore, in Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, cohort (ERSPC vs PRIAS) was not associated with any of the outcomes. Results are limited by the retrospective study design, limited statistical power, and inability to match the cohorts for predictive factors.
conclusionsThere was no difference in survival outcomes between a non-protocol-based follow-up and a protocol-based contemporary AS follow-up of patients with low-risk PC. However, a longer follow-up is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared survival outcomes of two cohorts of patients with low-risk prostate cancer: a strict and a loose follow-up protocol. We found no differences in survival measures between the cohorts.
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.