Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37149430›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2023

Use of expectant management based on prostate cancer risk and health status: How far are we from a risk-adapted approach?

Brooke Namboodri Spratte, Hung-Jui Tan, Ibardo A Zambrano, Ram Sankar Basak, Christopher P Filson, Bruce L Jacobs, Soohyun Hwang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Brooke Namboodri SpratteDepartment of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: brooke_namboodri@med.unc.edu.
Hung-Jui TanDepartment of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Ibardo A ZambranoDepartment of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Ram Sankar BasakDepartment of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Christopher P FilsonDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Bruce L JacobsDepartment of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Soohyun HwangDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JOHN C. BYRD · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UM1TR004406 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI NICHOLAS J SHAHEEN · 2023 to 2026
$37.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004406NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile active surveillance, a form of expectant management (EM), is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), some favor a more risk-adapted approach that recognizes patient preferences and condition-specific factors. However, previous research has shown non-patient-related factors often drive PCa treatment. In this context, we characterized trends in AS with respect to disease risk and health status. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified men 66 years and older diagnosed with localized low- and intermediate-risk PCa from 2008 to 2017 and examined receipt of EM, defined as the absence of treatment (i.e., surgery, cryotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapies) within 1 year of diagnosis. We performed bivariable analysis to compare trends in use for EM vs. treatment, stratified by disease risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3, 3+4, 4+3; PSA<10, 10-20) and health status (i.e., NCI Comorbidity Index (NCI), frailty, life expectancy). We then ran a multivariable logistic regression model to examine determinants of EM.

resultsWithin this cohort, 26,364 (38%) were categorized as low-risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3 and PSA<10) and 43,520 (62%) as intermediate-risk (i.e., all others). Over the study period, use of EM significantly increased across all risk groups, except for Gleason 4+3 (P = 0.662), as well across all health status groups. However, linear trends did not differ significantly between frail vs. nonfrail patients for both those categorized as low-risk (P = 0.446) and intermediate-risk (P = 0.208). Trends also did not differ between NCI 0 vs. 1 vs. >1 for low-risk PCa (P = 0.395). In the multivariable models, EM was associated with increasing age and being frail for men with both low- and intermediate risk disease. Conversely, EM selection was negatively associated with higher comorbidity score.

conclusionsEM increased significantly over time for patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk disease, with the most notable differences based on age and Gleason score. In contrast, trends in uptake of EM did not differ substantively by health status, suggesting that physicians may not be effectively incorporating patient health into PCa treatment decisions. Additional work is needed to develop interventions that recognize health status as an essential component of a risk-adapted approach.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingAgedAndrogen AntagonistsHumansMaleMedicareNeoplasm GradingProstate-Specific AntigenRisk FactorsUnited StatesAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific AntigenExpectant managementHealth statusProstate cancerRisk-adapted approach

Identifiers

PMID37149430
PMCPMC11228925

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.