ArticleBrachytherapy
Assessing the role of external beam radiation therapy in combination with brachytherapy versus brachytherapy alone for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Article in Brachytherapy. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDefinitive treatment options for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The role of brachytherapy ± ADT in the absence of EBRT is not well defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to BT±ADT for UIR-PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with UIR-PCa diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Inverse propensity of treatment weighting was used to balance covariables that influenced treatment allocation and outcomes, and propensity-weighted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios.
resultsA total of 11,721 men were stratified into four treatment groups: (1) BT without ADT (n = 4,535), (2) BT+ADT (n = 1,303), (3) EBRT+BT (n = 3,446), or (4) EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2,437). Relative to patients treated with BT alone, BT+ADT (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.86 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.76-0.99], p = 0.03), EBRT+BT (HR: 0.79 [0.70-0.88], p = 0.00002), and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.76 [0.67-0.85], p = 0.000003) were associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to BT alone, EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS on weight-adjusted MVA (HR: 0.82 [0.75-0.89], p = 0.000005). 10-year OS for BT vs. EBRT+BT was 62.4% [60.1-64.7] vs. 69.3% [67.5-71.2], respectively (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsEBRT+BT correlated with improved OS relative to BT alone in men with UIR-PCa, reaffirming current NCCN recommendations recommending EBRT+BT over BT alone. While prior studies reported no benefit to adding EBRT to BT with optimal implant dosimetry, this study suggests men benefit from EBRT in a population of variable implant quality.
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.