ReviewArab journal of urology2022
Radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy as first-line definitive therapy for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Stage-, Age-, and Frailty-Specific Cancer-Control Outcomes of 2600 Patients.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 14 institutions in 14 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To present an update of the available literature on external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy (BT) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing the survival outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa who received EBRT with or without BT compared to RP as the first-line therapy with curative intent. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database in January 2021. Moreover, we used random or fixed-effects meta-analytical models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity per the Results: A total of 27 studies were selected with 23 studies being eligible for both OS and CSS. EBRT alone had a significantly worse OS and CSS compared to RP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.65; and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25-1.93). However, there was no difference in OS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.76-1.34) and CSS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45-1.06) between EBRT plus BT compared to RP. Conclusion: While cancer control affected by EBRT alone seems inferior to RP in patients with high-risk PCa, BT additive to EBRT was not different from RP. These data support the need for BT in addition to EBRT as part of multimodal RT for high-risk PCa.
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.