Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36710292›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2023

Active surveillance in renal transplant patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre analysis.

Timo F W Soeterik, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Harm H E van Melick, Hans Kelder, Federica Peretti, Charles Dariane, Marc-Olivier Timsit, Julien Branchereau, Benoit Mesnard, Derya Tilki and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2023. 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
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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, 7 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

19 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Timo F W SoeterikDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands. t.soeterik@antoniusziekenhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0259-8750
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Harm H E van MelickDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans KelderDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Federica PerettiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Charles DarianeDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, University of Paris, Paris, France.
Marc-Olivier TimsitDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, University of Paris, Paris, France.
Julien BranchereauDepartment of Urology, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
Benoit MesnardDepartment of Urology, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
Derya TilkiMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jonathon OlsburghDepartment of Urology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Meghana KulkarniDepartment of Urology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.
Luigi BianconeDepartment of Nephrology, University of Turin and Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaDepartment of Urology, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Young Academic Urologists Prostate Cancer Working Party (YAU-PCa WP)
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITUniversité Paris Cité · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRGuy's Hospital · GBUniversity of Turin · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITKoç University · TRPuigvert Foundation · ESUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDue to medical improvements leading to increased life expectancy after renal transplantation and widened eligibility criteria allowing older patients to be transplanted, incidence of (low-risk) prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing among renal transplant recipients (RTR). It remains to be established whether active surveillance (AS) for PCa represents a safe treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we aim to compare AS discontinuation and oncological outcomes of AS for PCa of RTR vs. non-transplant patients.

methodsMulticentre study including RTR diagnosed with PCa between 2008 and 2018 in whom AS was initiated. A subgroup of non-RTR from the St. Antonius hospital AS cohort was used as a control group. Comparison of RTR vs. non-RTR was performed by 2:1 propensity score matched survival analysis. Outcome measures included tumour progression-free survival, treatment-free survival, metastasis rates, biochemical recurrence rates and overall survival. Patients were matched based on age, year of diagnosis, PSA, biopsy ISUP grade group, relative number of positive biopsy cores and clinical stage.

resultsA total of 628 patients under AS were evaluated, including 17 RTRs and 611 non-RTRs. A total of 13 RTR cases were matched with 24 non-RTR cases. Median overall follow-up for the RTR and non-RTR matched cases was, respectively, 5.1 (IQR 3.2-8.7) years and 5.7 (IQR 4.8-8.1) years. There were no events of metastasis and biochemical recurrence among matched cases. The matched-pair analysis results in a 1-year and 5-year survival of the RTR and non-RTR patients were, respectively, 100 vs. 92%, and 39 vs. 76% for tumour progression, 100 vs. 91% and 59 vs. 76% for treatment-free survival and, respectively, 100 vs. 100% and 88 vs. 100% for overall survival. No significant differences in tumour progression-free survival (p = 0.07) and treatment-free survival were observed (p = 0.3). However, there was a significant difference in overall survival comparing both groups (p = 0.046).

conclusionsAS may be carefully considered in RTR with low-risk PCa. In our preliminary analysis, no major differences were present in AS outcomes between RTR and non-RTR. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the RTR subgroup.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationProstatic NeoplasmsHumansIncidenceMaleRiskWatchful WaitingActive surveillanceProstate cancerRenal transplantation

Identifiers

PMID36710292
PMCPMC10082698
OpenAlexW4318457386

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.