Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37355358›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2024

European Association of Urology Biochemical Recurrence Risk Classification as a Decision Tool for Salvage Radiotherapy-A Multicenter Study.

Felix Preisser, Raisa S Abrams-Pompe, Piter Jan Stelwagen, Dirk Böhmer, Fabio Zattoni, Alessandro Magli, Juan Gómez Rivas, Roser Vives Dilme, Matteo Sepulcri, Aritz Eguibar and 10 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. How to tailor the radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in the modern era of molecular imaging, genomic testing, and technology development?Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 15 institutions in 7 countries.

Felix PreisserMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Raisa S Abrams-PompeMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Piter Jan StelwagenDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dirk BöhmerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Fabio ZattoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urology Clinic, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Alessandro MagliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Udine, ASUIUD, Udine, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital San Martino, Belluno, Italy.
Juan Gómez RivasDepartment of Urology, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Roser Vives DilmeDepartment of Urology, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Matteo SepulcriRadiation Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
Aritz EguibarDepartment of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Christoph ArnoldDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Christian D FankhauserDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland; Department of Urology, University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Felix K-H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Henk van der PoelDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giorgio GandagliaDepartment of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University and San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Thomas WiegelDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Derya TilkiMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: d.tilki@uke.de.
EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Group
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEHospital Clínico San Carlos · ESInnsbruck Medical University · ATThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHospital Universitario La Paz · ESIstituto Oncologico Veneto · ITKoç University · TRSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Udine · ITUniversity of Zurich · CHVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Association of Urology (EAU) has proposed a risk stratification for patients harboring biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

objectiveTo assess whether this risk stratification helps in choosing patients for salvage radiotherapy (SRT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsAnalyses of 2379 patients who developed BCR after RP (1989-2020), within ten European high-volume centers, were conducted. Early and late SRT were defined as SRT delivered at prostate-specific antigen values <0.5 and ≥0.5 ng/ml, respectively. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable Cox models tested the effect of SRT versus no SRT on death and cancer-specific death. The Simon-Makuch method tested for survival differences within each risk group. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 805 and 1574 patients were classified as having EAU low- and high-risk BCR. The median follow-up was 54 mo after BCR for survivors. For low-risk BCR, 12-yr overall survival was 87% versus 78% (p = 0.2) and cancer-specific survival was 100% versus 96% (p = 0.2) for early versus no SRT. For high-risk BCR, 12-yr overall survival was 81% versus 66% (p < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival was 98% versus 82% (p < 0.001) for early versus no SRT. In multivariable analyses, early SRT decreased the risk for death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55, p < 0.01) and cancer-specific death (HR: 0.08, p < 0.001). Late SRT was a predictor of cancer-specific death (HR: 0.17, p < 0.01) but not death (p = 0.1).

conclusionsImproved survival was recorded within the high-risk BCR group for patients treated with early SRT compared with those under observation. Our results suggest recommending early SRT for high-risk BCR men. Conversely, surveillance might be suitable for low-risk BCR, since only nine patients with low-risk BCR died from prostate cancer during follow-up. PATIENT SUMMARY: The impact of salvage radiotherapy (SRT) on cancer-specific outcomes stratified according to the European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk classification was assessed. While men with high-risk BCR should be offered SRT, surveillance might be a suitable option for those with low-risk BCR.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrologyHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapyProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical recurrenceEuropean Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk classificationOncologic outcomesSalvage radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37355358
OpenAlexW4381614463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.