Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35475128›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2021

M1a prostate cancer: Results of a Dutch multidisciplinary consensus meeting.

Shafak Aluwini, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Hilda de Barros, Niven Mehra, Herman Stoevelaar, Derya Yakar, Henk van der Poel, Dutch M1a Prostate Cancer Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2021. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Lymph node classification in E‑PSMA reporting guidelines for PSMA‑PET.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors.

Shafak AluwiniDepartment of Radiation Oncology UMCG Groningen The Netherlands.
Daniela E Oprea-LagerDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam University Medical Centers VU University Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Hilda de BarrosDepartment of Urology Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Niven MehraDepartment of Medical Oncology Radboudumc Nijmegen The Netherlands.
Herman StoevelaarCentre for Decision Analysis & Support Ismar Healthcare NV Lier Belgium.
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology UMCG Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4920-9441
Henk van der PoelDepartment of Urology Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8772-1120
Dutch M1a Prostate Cancer Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of de novo and recurrent metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) limited to non-regional lymph nodes (M1a) in daily clinical practice. Materials and methods: The panel consisted of 37 Dutch specialists from disciplines involved in the management of M1a PCa (urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, and nuclear medicine). We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a consensus meeting (video conference). Consensus (good agreement) was defined as the situation in which ≥ 75% of the panelists chose the same option. Results: Consensus existed for 57% of the items. The panel agreed that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is the most appropriate standard imaging modality to identify de novo (100%) and recurrent (97%) M1a PCa. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy to the prostate ± the M1a lesion(s) was most frequently considered an option for de novo M1a PCa. For M1a as recurrent disease, ADT alone, deferring treatment, or local radiotherapy to the M1a lesion(s) were judged to be the most important treatment options. However, no specific indications for treatment choice in relation to disease characteristics could be formulated. Conclusions: The Dutch consensus panel preferred PSMA-PET/CT as the standard diagnostic modality to detect M1a PCa. Although potential treatment options were identified, explicit recommendations could not be formulated. This might (partly) be explained by the absence of high-level clinical evidence in this subset of patients. Further research is, therefore, strongly encouraged.

Indexed as

extra‐pelvic lymph nodemetastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancernodal metastasisnon‐regional lymph nodePSMA‐PET/CTrecurrent prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID35475128
PMCPMC8988794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.