Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37847502›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Patient and Context Factors in the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Giovannino Ciccone, Stefano De Luca, Marco Oderda, Fernando Munoz, Marco Krengli, Simona Allis, Carlo Giuliano Baima, Maurizio Barale, Sara Bartoncini, Debora Beldì and 44 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

54 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.

Giovannino CicconeEpidemiologia Clinica e Valutativa, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino e CPO Piemonte, Torino, Italy.
Stefano De LucaUrologia, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga e Università di Torino, Orbassano, Italy.
Marco OderdaUrologia, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Fernando MunozRadioterapia, PO Umberto Parini, Aosta, Italy.
Marco KrengliRadioterapia, AOU Maggiore della Carità e Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Simona AllisRadioterapia, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Italy.
Carlo Giuliano BaimaUrologia, Ospedali Riuniti ASL TO4, Ciriè, Italy.
Maurizio BaraleUrologia, AO Ordine Mauriziano, Torino, Italy.
Sara BartonciniRadioterapia, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Debora BeldìRadioterapia, AOU Maggiore della Carità e Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Luca BelleiUrologia, Ospedali Riuniti ASL TO4, Ivrea, Italy.
Andrea Rocco BellissimoRete Oncologica del Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Diego BernardiUrologia, AO Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
Giorgio BiaminoUrologia, PO Cardinal Massaia, Asti, Italy.
Michele BilliaUrologia, AOU Maggiore della Carità e Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Roberto BorsaUrologia, PO SS Annunziata, Savigliano, Italy.
Domenico CanteRadioterapia, ASL TO4, Ospedale di Ivrea, Ivrea, Italy.
Emanuele CastelliUrologia, PO Umberto Parini, Aosta, Italy.
Giovanni CattaneoUrologia, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga e Università di Torino, Orbassano, Italy.
Danilo CentrellaUrologia, PO San Biagio, Domodossola, Italy.
Devis ColluraUrologia, PO Humanitas Gradenigo, Torino, Italy.
Pietro CoppolaUrologia, PO SS Annunziata, Savigliano, Italy.
Ettore DalmassoUrologia, AO Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy.
Andrea Di StasioUrologia, AO SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy.
Giuseppe FasolisUrologia, PO Michele e Pietro Ferrero, Verduno, Italy.
Michele FiorioUrologia, PO San Giovanni Bosco, Torino, Italy.
Elisabetta GaribaldiRadioterapia, PO Umberto Parini, Aosta, Italy.
Giuseppe GirelliRadioterapia, PO Nuovo Ospedale degli Infermi, Ponderano, Italy.
Daniele GriffaUrologia, Ospedali Riuniti ASL TO4, Ivrea, Italy.
Stefano GuercioUrologia, PO Edoardo Agnelli, Penerolo, Italy.
Roberto MigliariUrologia, AO Ordine Mauriziano, Torino, Italy.
Luca MolinaroAnatomia Patologica 1U, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Franco MontefioreUrologia, PO San Giacomo, Novi Ligure, Italy.
Gabriele MontefuscoUrologia, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Maurizio MoroniUrologia, PO Maria Vittoria, Torino, Italy.
Giovanni MutoUrologia, Ospedale Maria Pia, Torino, Italy.
Francesca Ponti di Sant'AngeloRete Oncologica del Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Luca RuggieroUrologia, PO San Giacomo, Novi Ligure, Italy.
Maria Grazia Ruo ReddaRadioterapia, AO Ordine Mauriziano e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Armando SeraoUrologia, AO SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy.
Maria Sara SqueoUrologia, PO Martini, Torino, Italy.
Salvatore StancatiUrologia, PO Rivoli, Rivoli, Italy.
Domenico SurletiUrologia, AO Ordine Mauriziano, Torino, Italy.
Francesco VarvelloUrologia, PO Michele e Pietro Ferrero, Verduno, Italy.
Alessandro VolpeUrologia, AOU Maggiore della Carità e Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Stefano ZaramellaUrologia, PO Nuovo Ospedale degli Infermi, Ponderano, Italy.
Giovanni ZarrelliUrologia, PO Cardinal Massaia, Asti, Italy.
Andrea ZitellaUrologia, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Enrico BollitoAnatomia Patologica, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga e Università di Torino, Orbassano, Italy.
Paolo GonteroUrologia, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza e Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Francesco PorpigliaUrologia, AOU San Luigi Gonzaga e Università di Torino, Orbassano, Italy.
Claudia GalassiEpidemiologia Clinica e Valutativa, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino e CPO Piemonte, Torino, Italy.
Oscar BertettoRete Oncologica del Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
START Collaborative Group
Collaborative Group (United States) · USAzienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · ITA. O. Ordine Mauriziano di Torino · ITAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti · ITAzienda Sanitaria Ospedaliera S.Croce e Carle Cuneo · ITOspedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITOspedale Civile Edoardo Agnelli · ITOspedale di Rivoli · ITOspedale Humanitas Gradenigo · ITOspedale San Giovanni Bosco · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale di Asti · ITCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITOspedale Civile Di Ivrea · ITOspedale degli Infermi · ITOspedale Maria Vittoria · ITOspedale Martini · ITOspedale San Giacomo Apostolo · ITOspedale SS. Annunziata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) has been recommended for years, its adoption at the population level is often limited. Objective: To make active surveillance available for patients with LRPC using a research framework and to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between those who receive active surveillance vs radical treatments at diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, prospective cohort study was designed by a large multidisciplinary group of specialists and patients' representatives. The study was conducted within all 18 urology centers and 7 radiation oncology centers in the Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta Regional Oncology Network in Northwest Italy (approximate population, 4.5 million). Participants included patients with a new diagnosis of LRPC from June 2015 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Exposure: At diagnosis, all patients were informed of the available treatment options by the urologist and received an information leaflet describing the benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with active treatments, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation treatment (RT). Patients choosing active surveillance were actively monitored with regular prostate-specific antigen testing, clinical examinations, and a rebiopsy at 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were proportion of patients choosing active surveillance or radical treatments, overall survival, and, for patients in active surveillance, treatment-free survival. Comparisons were analyzed with multivariable logistic or Cox models, considering centers as clusters. Results: A total of 852 male patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years) were included, and 706 patients (82.9%) chose active surveillance, with an increasing trend over time; 109 patients (12.8%) chose RP, and 37 patients (4.3%) chose RT. Median (IQR) follow-up was 57 (41-76) months. Worse prostate cancer prognostic factors were negatively associated with choosing active surveillance (eg, stage T2a vs T1c: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93), while patients who were older (eg, age ≥75 vs <65 years: OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.98-9.22), had higher comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 vs 0: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.02-3.85), underwent an independent revision of the first prostate biopsy (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.38) or underwent a multidisciplinary assessment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.38-5.11) were more likely to choose active surveillance vs active treatment. After adjustment, center at which a patient was treated continued to be an important factor in the choice of treatment (intraclass correlation coefficient, 18.6%). No differences were detected in overall survival between active treatment and active surveillance. Treatment-free survival in the active surveillance cohort was 59.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-62.9%) at 24 months, 54.5% (95% CI, 50.2%-58.6%) at 36 months, and 47.0% (95% CI, 42.2%-51.7%) at 48 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with LRPC, a research framework at system level as well as favorable prognostic factors, a multidisciplinary approach, and an independent review of the first prostate biopsy at patient-level were positively associated with high uptake of active surveillance, a practice largely underused before this study.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingAgedCohort StudiesHumansMaleProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID37847502
PMCPMC10582795
OpenAlexW4387691784

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.