ArticleEuropean urology open science2023
Variations in the Uptake of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer and Its Impact on Outcomes.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lack of real-world evidence on active surveillance in Chinese patients with prostate cancer: insights from a 10-year cohort and a physician survey.BMC urology · 2026Observational
- Cohort Profile Update: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and PCBase.International journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Biochemical Recurrence and Risk of Mortality Following Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer (PC) illustrate an inequality in treatment strategies. Objective: To examine the association between regional differences in AS uptake and transition to radical treatment, start of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), watchful waiting, or death. Design setting and participants: A Swedish population-based cohort study was conducted including men in the National Prostate Cancer Register in Sweden with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PC, starting AS from January 1, 2007 and continuing till December 31, 2019. Intervention: Regional tradition of low, intermediate, or high proportions of immediate radical treatment. Outcomes measurements and statistical analysis: Probabilities of transition from AS to radical treatment, start of ADT, watchful waiting, or death from other causes were assessed. Results and limitations: We included 13 679 men. The median age was 66 yr, median PSA 5.1 ng/ml, and median follow-up 5.7 yr. Men from regions with a high AS uptake had a lower probability of transition to radical treatment (36%) than men from regions with a low AS uptake (40%; absolute difference 4.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.2), but not a higher probability of AS failure defined as the start of ADT (absolute difference 0.4%; 95% CI -0.7 to 1.4). There were no statistically significant differences in the probability of transition to watchful waiting or death from other causes. Limitations include uncertainty in the estimation of remaining lifetime and transition to watchful waiting. Conclusions: A regional tradition of a high AS uptake is associated with a lower probability of transition to radical treatment, but not with AS failure. A low AS uptake suggests overtreatment. Patient summary: There are considerable regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer. This study compared the outcomes of AS in different regions and found no association between AS uptake and failure of AS; it suggests that a low AS uptake indicates overtreatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.