Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36428595›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Pattern of Radiotherapy Treatment in Low-Risk, Intermediate-Risk, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Analysis of National Cancer Database.

Rishabh Agrawal, Asoke Dey, Sujay Datta, Ana Nassar, William Grubb, Bryan Traughber, Tithi Biswas, Roger Ove, Tarun Podder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rishabh AgrawalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Asoke DeyDepartment of Management, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, USA.
Sujay DattaDepartment of Statistics, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, USA.
Ana NassarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
William GrubbDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Bryan TraughberMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Tithi BiswasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Roger OveDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1287-1551
Tarun PodderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Augusta University · USUniversity Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center · USUniversity of Akron · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In this study, the utilization rates and survival outcomes of different radiotherapy techniques are compared in prostate cancer (PCa) patients stratified by risk group. Methods: We analyzed an extensive data set of N0, M0, non-surgical PCa patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were grouped into six categories based on RT modality: an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) group with brachytherapy (BT) boost, IMRT with/without IMRT boost, proton therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT LDR), and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT HDR). Patients were also stratified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines: low-risk (clinical stage T1−T2a, Gleason Score (GS) ≤ 6, and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) < 10), intermediate-risk (clinical stage T2b or T2c, GS of 7, or PSA of 10−20), and high-risk (clinical stage T3−T4, or GS of 8−10, or PSA > 20). Overall survival (OS) probability was determined using a Kaplan−Meier estimator. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by risk group for the six treatment modalities. Results: The most utilized treatment modality for all PCa patients was IMRT (53.1%). Over the years, a steady increase in SBRT utilization was observed, whereas BT HDR usage declined. IMRT-treated patient groups exhibited relatively lower survival probability in all risk categories. A slightly better survival probability was observed for the proton therapy group. Hormonal therapy was used for a large number of patients in all risk groups. Conclusion: This study revealed that IMRT was the most common treatment modality for PCa patients. Brachytherapy, SBRT, and IMRT+BT exhibited similar survival rates, whereas proton showed slightly better overall survival across the three risk groups. However, analysis of the demographics indicates that these differences are at least in part due to selection bias.

Indexed as

brachytherapyIMRToverall survivalprostate cancerproton-beam therapyradiotherapySBRT

Identifiers

PMID36428595
PMCPMC9688758
OpenAlexW4308874298

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.