ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022
Evaluation of selective bone scan staging in prostate cancer - external validation of current strategies and decision-curve analysis.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. 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.
- Selective Bone Scan staging for patients with Prostate cancer: do absolute categories really make sense?Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecommendations for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients vary between guidelines and literature.
methodsOur objective was to validate and compare prediction models selecting newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients for bone scan staging. To achieve this, we validated eleven models in a population-based cohort of 10,721 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2019. The primary outcome was net-benefit. This was assessed at different balances of conservatism and tolerance, represented by preference ratio and number-willing-to-test (NWT). Secondary outcomes included calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large (intercept), and discrimination measured by Area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristics curve (AUC).
resultsFor preference ratios less than 1:39 (NWT greater than 40), scanning everyone provided greater net-benefit than selective staging. For preference ratios 1:39 to 3:97 (NWT 33-40), the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2020 guideline recommendation was the best approach. For preference ratios 3:97-7:93 (NWT 14-33), scanning EAU high-risk patients only was preferable. For preference ratios 7:93-1:9 (NWT 10-13), scanning only Gnanapragasam Group 5 patients was best. All models had similar fair discrimination (AUCs 0.68-0.80), but most had poor calibration.
conclusionsWe identified three selective staging strategies that outperformed all other approaches but did so over different ranges of conservatism and tolerance. Scanning only EAU high-risk patients provided the greatest net-benefit over the greatest range of preference ratios and scenarios, but other options may be preferable depending upon the local healthcare system's degree of conservatism and tolerance.
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.