ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2024
Characteristics of incidental prostate cancer in the United States.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparisons of Novel Risk Stratification Models to the Current cT1a/b Staging in Incidental Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 2026Article
- Years of Life Lost in Incidental Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 2026Article
- Management and Oncologic Outcomes of Incidental Prostate Cancer After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Denmark.The Journal of urology · 2024Observational
- Oncologic Outcomes of Incidental Versus Biopsy-diagnosed Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institutional Study.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with advanced TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer: a population-based real-world study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Incidental Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Analysis from a Contemporary National Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData regarding North-American incidental (cT1a/b) prostate cancer (PCa) patients is scarce. To address this, incidental PCa characteristics (age, PSA values at diagnosis, Gleason score [GS]), subsequent treatment and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were explored.
methodsIncidental PCa patients were identified within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015). Descriptive statistics, annual percentage changes (EAPC), Kaplan-Meier estimates, as well as Cox regression models were used. Bootstrapping technique was used to generate 95% confidence intervals for CSS at 6 years.
resultsOf all 344,031 newly diagnosed non metastatic PCa patients, 5155 harbored incidental PCa. Annual rates of incidental PCa increased from 1.9% (2004) to 2.5 % (2015; p = 0.02). PSA values at diagnosis were 0-4 ng/ml in 48% vs. 4-10 ng/ml in 31% vs. > 10 ng/ml in 21%. Of all incidental PCa patients, 64% harbored GS 6 vs. 25% GS 7 vs. 11% GS ≥ 8. Of all incidental PCa patients, 47% were aged < 70, 35% were between 70 and 79 and 18% were ≥ 80 years. Subsequently, 71% underwent no local treatment (NLT) vs. 16% radical prostatectomy (RP) vs. 14% radiotherapy (RT). Proportions of patients with NLT increased from 65 to 81% (p = 0.0001) over the study period (2004-2015). CSS at six years ranged from 58% in GS ≥ 8 patients with NLT to 100% in patients who harbored GS 6 and underwent either RP or RT.
conclusionIncidental PCa in the United States is rare. Most incidental PCa patients are diagnosed in men aged less than 80 years of age. The majority of incidental PCa patients undergo NLT and enjoy excellent CSS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37872250What 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.