Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790091›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2023

Toxicity and outcomes after external beam irradiation for prostate cancer in patients with prior holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Early experience.

Brady S Laughlin, Gopi L Narang, Scott M Cheney, Mitchell R Humphreys, Carlos E Vargas, Sameer R Keole, Jean-Claude M Rwigema, Steven E Schild, William W Wong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brady S LaughlinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5384-1637
Gopi L NarangDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Scott M CheneyDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Mitchell R HumphreysDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Carlos E VargasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Sameer R KeoleDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Jean-Claude M RwigemaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Steven E SchildDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
William W WongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7629-5859
WinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE/

objectivesHolmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP. MATERIALS/

methodsEighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method.

resultsMedian follow-up was 18 months (range: 4-46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5-32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: -2-21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post-void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre-HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow-up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18-month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively.

conclusionsPatients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateProstatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder Neck ObstructionHolmiumHumansMaleProstateHolmiumprostate cancerurological oncology

Identifiers

PMID35790091
PMCPMC9875616
OpenAlexW4283805027

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.