ArticleCancer medicine2024
Exploring the relation of active surveillance schedules and prostate cancer mortality.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Projected outcomes of reduced-biopsy management of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications for relabeling.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Exploring the relation of active surveillance schedules and prostate cancer mortality.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActive surveillance (AS), where treatment is deferred until cancer progression is detected by a biopsy, is acknowledged as a way to reduce overtreatment in prostate cancer. However, a consensus on the frequency of taking biopsies while in AS is lacking. In former studies to optimize biopsy schedules, the delay in progression detection was taken as an evaluation indicator and believed to be associated with the long-term outcome, prostate cancer mortality. Nevertheless, this relation was never investigated in empirical data. Here, we use simulated data from a microsimulation model to fill this knowledge gap.
methodsIn this study, the established MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis model was extended with functionality to simulate the AS procedures. The biopsy sensitivity in the model was calibrated on the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study (PASS) data, and four (tri-yearly, bi-yearly, PASS, and yearly) AS programs were simulated. The relation between detection delay and prostate cancer mortality was investigated by Cox models.
resultsThe biopsy sensitivity of progression detection was found to be 50%. The Cox models show a positive relation between a longer detection delay and a higher risk of prostate cancer death. A 2-year delay resulted in a prostate cancer death risk of 2.46%-2.69% 5 years after progression detection and a 10-year risk of 5.75%-5.91%. A 4-year delay led to an approximately 8% greater 5-year risk and an approximately 25% greater 10-year risk.
conclusionThe detection delay is confirmed as a surrogate for prostate cancer mortality. A cut-off for a "safe" detection delay could not be identified.
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.