Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652585›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2022

Second malignancy probabilities in patients with prostate cancer treated with whole pelvis radiation therapy versus prostate only radiation therapy.

Hae Lin Cho, Vedang Murthy, Kent W Mouw, Anthony V D'Amico, Paul L Nguyen, Jonathan E Leeman, Edward Christopher Dee

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hae Lin ChoHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Vedang MurthyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6011-9319
Kent W MouwDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7939-7343
Anthony V D'AmicoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1570-8952
Paul L NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4268-3973
Jonathan E LeemanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4539-0762
Edward Christopher DeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6119-0889
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USHomi Bhabha National Institute · INMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIH HHS R01-CA240582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) may improve outcomes compared with prostate only radiation therapy (PORT) in some subsets of men with prostate cancer, as in the POP-RT trial. However, there is concern about increased risk of adverse effects with WPRT, including the development of radiation-induced second malignancies (SM). Given the rarity of SM, little is known about relative rates of SM between WPRT and PORT.

methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed of men with nonmetastatic, node-negative prostate cancer with at least 60 months of follow-up using a national database. SM probabilities were compared in men receiving either WPRT or PORT using multivariable logistic models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up were also conducted.

resultsOf 50,237 patients in the study, 39,338 (78.4%) received PORT, and 10,899 (21.7%) received WPRT. Median follow-up was 106.2 months (interquartile range 82.32-132.25). Crude probabilities of SM were 9.16% for WPRT and 8.88% for PORT. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for development of SM with PORT versus WPRT was 1.046 (95% confidence interval 0.968-1.130). Temporal sensitivity analyses by stratifying by year of diagnosis and follow-up length also did not demonstrate any significant difference in rates of SM between WPRT and PORT using AORs with WPRT as the referent.

conclusionsRetrospective analysis of over 50,000 patients did not demonstrate an association between WPRT and an increased probability of SM compared to PORT. Given the findings of POP-RT, the use of WPRT may become widespread for certain subsets of men. Thus, our findings could help guide how we counsel patients deciding between WPRT and PORT and suggest the need for prospective assessment of SM risk with WPRT and PORT.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Second PrimaryProstatic NeoplasmsAndrogen AntagonistsHumansMalePelvisProbabilityProspective StudiesProstateProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific Antigenprostate cancerprostate only radiation therapyprostate radiotherapysecond malignancywhole pelvic radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID35652585
PMCPMC9246953
OpenAlexW4281763268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.