Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35485635›Full record

ArticleCancer science2022

Radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy for prostate-specific antigen persistence in lymph node-positive prostate cancer.

Masaki Shiota, Dai Takamatsu, Takahiro Kimura, Kojiro Tashiro, Yoshiyuki Matsui, Ryotaro Tomida, Ryoichi Saito, Masakazu Tsutsumi, Akira Yokomizo, Yoshiyuki Yamamoto and 28 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A machine learning model incorporatingQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

38 authors.

Masaki ShiotaDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3306-4858
Dai TakamatsuDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kojiro TashiroDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshiyuki MatsuiDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryotaro TomidaDepartment of Urology, Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Japan.
Ryoichi SaitoDepartment of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan.
Masakazu TsutsumiDepartment of Urology, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi, Japan.
Akira YokomizoDepartment of Urology, Harasanshin Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
Yoshiyuki YamamotoDepartment of Urology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan.
Kohei EdamuraDepartment of Urology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Makito MiyakeDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-7356
Shuichi MorizaneDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Japan.
Takayuki YoshinoDepartment of Urology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Akihiro MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, Kashiwa Hospital, The Jikei University, Chiba, Japan.
Shintaro NaritaDepartment of Urology, Akita University, Akita, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2988-1860
Ryuji MatsumotoDepartment of Renal and Genitourinary Surgery, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Takashi KasaharaDivision of Urology, Department of Regenerative and Transplant Medicine, Niigata University, Niigata, Japan.
Kohei HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Japan.
Hiroaki MatsumotoDepartment of Urology, Yamaguchi University, Ube, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0568-1258
Masashi KatoDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Shusuke AkamatsuDepartment of Urology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Akira JorakuDepartment of Urology, Ibaraki Prefectural Central Hospital, Ibaraki Cancer Center, Kasama, Japan.
Manabu KatoDepartment of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University, Tsu, Japan.
Takahiro YamaguchiDepartment of Urology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Toshihiro SaitoDepartment of Urology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Tomoyuki KanekoDepartment of Urology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi TakahashiDepartment of Urology, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate, Japan.
Takuma KatoDepartment of Urology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Shinichi SakamotoDepartment of Urology, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7508-7521
Hideki EnokidaDepartment of Urology, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3050-9700
Hidenori KannoDepartment of Urology, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Japan.
Naoki TeradaDepartment of Urology, Miyazaki University, Miyazaki, Japan.
Shigetaka SuekaneDepartment of Urology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1150-2893
Naotaka NishiyamaDepartment of Urology, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.
Masatoshi EtoDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Hiroshi KitamuraDepartment of Urology, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.
Japanese Urological Oncology Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment for lymph node involvement (LNI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) has not been established. This study aimed to reveal the outcomes of various management strategies among patients with LNI after RP. Retrospectively, 561 patients with LNI after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) with RP treated between 2006 and 2019 at 33 institutions participating in the Japanese Urological Oncology Group were investigated. Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary outcome. Patients were stratified by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence after RP. Cox regression models were used to analyze the relationships between clinicopathological characteristics and survival. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test with or without propensity score matching. Prognoses, including MFS and overall survival, were prominently inferior among patients with persistent PSA compared with those without persistent PSA. In multivariate analysis, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiotherapy (RT) was associated with better MFS than ADT alone among patients with persistent PSA (hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% confidence interval = 0.15-0.93; p = 0.034). Similarly, MFS and overall survival were significantly better for ADT plus RT than for ADT alone among patients with persistent PSA after propensity score matching. This study indicated that PSA persistence in LNI prostate cancer increased the risk of poor prognoses, and intensive treatment featuring the addition of RT to ADT might improve survival.

Indexed as

Androgen AntagonistsProstatic NeoplasmsAndrogensHumansLymph NodesMaleProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesAndrogen AntagonistsAndrogensProstate-Specific Antigenandrogen deprivation therapylymph node involvementPSA persistenceradical prostatectomyradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35485635
PMCPMC9277249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.