Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38384437›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Nomogram Predicting the Outcome of Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients without Metastases on Restaging Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography.

Dennie Meijer, Pim J van Leeuwen, Wietse S C Eppinga, Ben G L Vanneste, Philip Meijnen, Laurien A Daniels, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Anne P Lont, Yves J L Bodar, Rosemarijn H Ettema and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Dennie MeijerDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim J van LeeuwenDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wietse S C EppingaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ben G L VannesteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Philip MeijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laurien A DanielsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anne P LontDepartment of Urology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Yves J L BodarDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rosemarijn H EttemaDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Katelijne C C de BieDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederik H K OudshoornDepartment of Urology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Jakko A NieuwenhuijzenDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk G van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten L DonswijkDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn W HeymansDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniela E Oprea-LagerDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva E SchaakeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
André N VisDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLCancer Center Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLGhent University Hospital · BEMeander Medisch Centrum · NLSpaarne Gasthuis · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Owing to the greater use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), patient selection for local salvage radiation therapy (sRT) has changed. Our objective was to determine the short-term efficacy of sRT in patients with BCR after RARP, and to develop a novel nomogram predicting BCR-free survival after sRT in a nationwide contemporary cohort of patients who underwent PSMA PET/CT before sRT for BCR of PCa, without evidence of metastatic disease. Methods: All 302 eligible patients undergoing PCa sRT in four reference centers between September 2015 and August 2020 were included. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis using a backward elimination procedure to develop a nomogram for predicting biochemical progression of PCa, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2 ng/ml above the post-sRT nadir within 1 yr after sRT. Key findings and limitations: Biochemical progression of disease within 1 yr after sRT was observed for 56/302 (19%) of the study patients. The final predictive model included PSA at sRT initiation, pathological grade group, surgical margin status, PSA doubling time, presence of local recurrence on PSMA PET/CT, and the presence of biochemical persistence (first PSA result ≥0.1 ng/ml) after RARP. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.79). Using our nomogram, patients with a predicted risk of >20% had a 30.8% chance of developing biochemical progression within 1 yr after sRT. Conclusions: Our novel nomogram may facilitate better patient counseling regarding early oncological outcome after sRT. Patients with high risk of biochemical progression may be candidates for more extensive treatment. Patient summary: We developed a new tool for predicting cancer control outcomes of radiotherapy for patients with recurrence of prostate cancer after surgical removal of their prostate. This tool may help in better counseling of these patients with recurrent cancer regarding their early expected outcome after radiotherapy.

Indexed as

NomogramsPositron emission tomography/computed tomographyProstate cancerProstate-specific membrane antigen imagingSalvage radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID38384437
PMCPMC10879939
OpenAlexW4391559166

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.