ReviewInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology2024
Outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI and biopsy in prostate cancer are the hot topic in this number of International Brazilian Journal of Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Focal Cryotherapy in Prostate Cancer. Does Gleason Impact Results?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Salvage Single-Port Transvesical Robotic Radical Prostatectomy Following High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Therapy.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare biochemical recurrence, sexual potency and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines were performed. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed. Biochemical recurrence at three and five years; incontinence rate (patients who used one pad or more) and erectile dysfunction rate at 12 and 36 months (patients who did not have sufficient erection to achieve sexual intercourse) were evaluated. The Mantel-Haenszel method was applied to estimate the pooled risk difference (RD) in the individual studies for categorical variables. All results were presented as 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Random effects models were used regardless of the level of heterogeneity (I²). (PROSPERO CRD42022296998).
resultsEight studies comprising 2,677 men with prostate cancer were included. There was no difference in biochemical recurrence between ablative and radical treatments. We observed the same biochemical recurrence between ablative therapy and radical treatment within five years (19.3% vs. 16.8%, respectively; RD 0.07; 95%CI=-0.05, 0.19; I2=68.2%; P=0.08) and continence rate at 12 months (9.2% vs. 31.8%, respectively; RD -0.13; 95%CI, -0.27, 0.01; I2=89%; P=0.32). When focal treatment was analyzed alone, two studies with 582 patients found higher erectile function at 12 months in the ablative therapy group than in the radical treatment (88.9% vs. 30.8%, respectively; RD -0.45; 95%CI -0.84, -0.05; I2=93%; P=0.03).
conclusionBiochemical recurrence and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment were similar. Ablative therapy appears to have a high rate of sexual potency.
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.