Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35254666›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2022

Comparison of outcomes of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: An analysis of the G.A.P.3 global consortium database.

Kerri R Beckmann, Chris H Bangma, Jozien Helleman, Anders Bjartell, Peter R Carroll, Todd Morgan, Daan Nieboer, Aida Santaolalla, Bruce J Trock, Riccardo Valdagni and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

12 authors.

Kerri R BeckmannCancer Epidemiology and Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jozien HellemanDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anders BjartellDepartment of Translational Medicine, Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Todd MorganMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Daan NieboerDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aida SantaolallaTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, Kings College London, London, UK.
Bruce J TrockThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Riccardo ValdagniRadiation Oncology and Prostate Cancer Program, Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milano, Italy.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [G.A.P.3] Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database. MATERIALS AND

methodsIntensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers' protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity.

resultsOut of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-1.83; p < 0.001), while risk of upgrading did not differ (HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.84-1.10).

conclusionResults suggest more frequent biopsy schedules may deter some men from continuing AS despite no evidence of grade progression.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingBiopsyDisease ProgressionHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigenactive surveillancebiopsy scheduleprostate cancertreatmentupgrading

Identifiers

PMID35254666
PMCPMC9541488

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.