Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268989›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of medical research2023

The direct prognosis comparison of

Zhen Liang, Chen Yuliang, Ming Zhu, Yi Zhou, Xingcheng Wu, Hanzhong Li, Bu Fan, Zhien Zhou, Weigang Yan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhen Liang *Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Chen Yuliang *Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Ming Zhu *Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yi ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xingcheng WuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Hanzhong LiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Bu FanDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Zhien ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. zhouzhien@sina.com.
Weigang YanDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. pumchywg@sina.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking Union Medical College Hospital · CN

Funding

National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-A-063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to compare the clinical outcomes after performing radical prostatectomy (RP) or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC).

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on 361 IRPC patients who underwent treatment in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2014 to August 2021, of which 160 underwent RP and 201 underwent Iodine-125 LDR. Patients were followed in clinic monthly during the first three months and at three-month intervals thereafter. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to predict biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Biochemical recurrence was defined using the Phoenix definition for LDR and the surgical definition for RP. The log-rank test was applied to compare bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with bRFS.

resultsMedian follow-up was 54 months for RP and 69 months for LDR. According to log-rank test, the differences of 5-year bRFS (70.2% vs 83.2%, P = 0.003) and 8-year bRFS (63.1% vs 68.9%, P < 0.001) between RP and LDR groups were statistically significant. Our results also indicated that there was no significant difference in terms of cRFS, CSS, or OS between the two groups. With multivariate analysis of the entire cohort, prostate volume ≤ 30 ml (P < 0.001), positive margin (P < 0.001), and percentage positive biopsy cores > 50% (P < 0.001) were independent factors suggestive of worse bRFS.

conclusionsLDR is a reasonable treatment option for IRPC patients, yielding improved bRFS and equivalent rates of cRFS, CSS and OS when compared with RP.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyLaparoscopyProstatic NeoplasmsHumansIodine RadioisotopesMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisProstateProstatectomyRetrospective StudiesIodine-125Iodine RadioisotopesComparative effectivenessLow-dose-rate brachytherapyProstatic neoplasmsRadical prostatectomyTreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37268989
PMCPMC10236737
OpenAlexW4379197425

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.