Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024633›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2022

Prostate Cancer Patients Under Active Surveillance with a Suspicious Magnetic Resonance Imaging Finding Are at Increased Risk of Needing Treatment: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium.

Jonathan Olivier, Weiyu Li, Daan Nieboer, Jozien Helleman, Monique Roobol, Vincent Gnanapragasam, Mark Frydenberg, Mikio Sugimoto, Peter Carroll, Todd M Morgan and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Focal Cryotherapy in Prostate Cancer. Does Gleason Impact Results?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 13 institutions in 9 countries.

Jonathan OlivierLille University Medical Center, Lille, France.
Weiyu LiUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Daan NieboerDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jozien HellemanDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vincent GnanapragasamCambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Mark FrydenbergCabrini Health, Cabrini Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Mikio SugimotoFaculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Peter CarrollUniversity California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Todd M MorganUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Riccardo ValdagniDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Jose Rubio-BrionesInstituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Grégoire RobertCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (CHU), Bordeaux, France.
Phillip StrickerSt Vincents Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Andrew HayenUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ivo SchootsDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Masoom HaiderSinai Health System, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Caroline M MooreUniversity College London & University College London Hospitals Trust, London, UK.
Brian DentonUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Arnauld VillersLille University Medical Center, Lille, France.
Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance GAP3 Consortium
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity of Michigan · USUniversité de Lille · FRCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCabrini Hospital · AUCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux · FRFundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología · ESKagawa University · JPProstate Cancer Foundation of Australia · AUUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S005897/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe inclusion criterion for active surveillance (AS) is low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The predictive value of the presence of a suspicious lesion at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion is insufficiently known.

objectiveTo evaluate the percentage of patients needing active treatment stratified by the presence or absence of a suspicious lesion at baseline MRI. DESIGN SETTING AND

participantsA retrospective analysis of the data from the multicentric AS GAP3 Consortium database was conducted. The inclusion criteria were men with grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 prostate cancer combined with prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml. We selected a subgroup of patients who had MRI at baseline and for whom MRI results and targeted biopsies were used for AS eligibility. Suspicious MRI was defined as an MRI lesion with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert ≥3 and for which targeted biopsies did not exclude the patient for AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was treatment free survival (FS). The secondary outcomes were histological GG progression FS and continuation of AS (discontinuation FS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study cohort included 2119 patients (1035 men with nonsuspicious MRI and 1084 with suspicious MRI) with a median follow-up of 23 (12-43) mo. For the whole cohort, 3-yr treatment FS was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69-74). For nonsuspicious MRI and suspicious MRI groups, 3-yr treatment FS rates were, respectively, 80% (95% CI: 77-83) and 63% (95% CI: 59-66). Active treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0,

conclusionsThe risks of switching to treatment, histological progression, and AS discontinuation are higher in cases of suspicious MRI at inclusion. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who choose active surveillance, those with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion in active surveillance are more likely to show switch to treatment than men with nonsuspicious MRI.

Indexed as

Active surveillanceDiscontinuationMagnetic resonance imagingNomogramProstate cancerWorldwide

Identifiers

PMID35024633
PMCPMC8738894
OpenAlexW4206488680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.