Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187721›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Nationwide Data Support Centralised Decision-making in Penile Cancer Care: A Before-and-After Study on Guideline Adherence and Disease-specific survival for Patients with an Indication for Perioperative Oncological Treatment.

Emma Ulvskog, Erik K Persson, Peter Kirrander, Katja Fall, Johan Ahlgren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emma UlvskogDepartment of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Erik K PerssonRegional Cancer Centre Mellansverige, Uppsala, Sweden.
Peter KirranderDepartment of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Katja FallClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Johan AhlgrenRegional Cancer Centre Mellansverige, Uppsala, Sweden.
Örebro University · SERegional Research Council in Uppsala-Örebro Region · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The benefit of perioperative oncological treatment in men with penile cancer is uncertain. In 2015, treatment recommendations were centralised in Sweden and treatment guidelines were updated. Objective: To evaluate if the use of oncological treatment in men with penile cancer increased after the introduction of centralised recommendations, and whether such therapy is associated with better survival. Design setting and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study including a total of 426 men diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node or distant metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We first assessed the change in the proportion of patients with an indication for perioperative oncological treatment who actually received such treatment. Second, we used Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease-specific mortality associated with perioperative treatment. Comparisons were made for both all men without perioperative treatment and for those who did not receive treatment but who lacked apparent contraindications for treatment. Results and limitations: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased from 2000 to 2018, from 32% of patients with an indication for treatment during the first 4 yr to 63% during the last 4 yr. In comparison to patients potentially eligible for oncological treatment who did not receive it, those who were treated had a 37% lower risk of disease-specific death (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Stage migration because of improvements in diagnostic tools over time may have inflated the more recent survival estimates. An influence of residual confounding due to comorbidity and other potential confounders cannot be excluded. Conclusions: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased after the centralisation of penile cancer care in Sweden. Although the observational study design precludes causal inference, the findings suggest that perioperative treatment in patients with penile cancer eligible for treatment may be associated with better survival. Patient summary: In this study, we looked at the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for men with penile cancer and lymph node metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. We found an increase in the use of cancer therapy and an increase in survival for patients who received such therapy.

Indexed as

ChemotherapyPenile cancerRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37187721
PMCPMC10175737
OpenAlexW4362469038

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.