ArticleBJUI compass2021
Impact of Decipher on use of post-operative radiotherapy: Individual patient analysis of two prospective registries.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- The natural history of a delayed detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Impact of Decipher on use of post-operative radiotherapy: Individual patient analysis of two prospective registries.BJUI compass · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the association between Genomic Classifier (GC)-risk group and post-radical prostatectomy treatment in clinical practice. Methods: Two prospective observational cohorts of men with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent RP in two referral centers and had GC testing post-prostatectomy between 2013 and 2018 were included. The primary endpoint of the study was to assess the association between GC-risk group and time to secondary therapy. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess the association between GC-risk group and time to receipt of secondary therapy after RP, where secondary therapy is defined as receiving either RT or ADT after RP. Results: A total of 398 patients are included in the analysis. Patients with high-GC risk were more likely to receive any secondary therapy (OR: 6.84) compared to patients with low/intermediate-GC risk. The proportion of high-GC risk patients receiving RT at 2 years post-RP was 31.5%, compared to only 6.3% among the low/intermediate-GC risk patients. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that physicians in routine practice used GC to identify high risk patients who might benefit the most from secondary treatment. As such, GC score was independent predictor of receipt of secondary treatment.
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.