Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38556562›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Development of risk-score model in patients with negative surgical margin after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Yuta Yamada, Yoichi Fujii, Shigenori Kakutani, Naoki Kimura, Kazuma Sugimoto, Yuji Hakozaki, Toru Sugihara, Yuta Takeshima, Taketo Kawai, Masaki Nakamura and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

22 authors.

Yuta YamadaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. yyamada2029@gmail.com.
Yoichi FujiiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Shigenori KakutaniDepartment of Urology, Chiba Tokushukai Hospital, Funabashi-Shi, Chiba, Japan.
Naoki KimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Kazuma SugimotoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yuji HakozakiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Toru SugiharaDepartment of Urology, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke-Shi, Tochigi-Ken, Japan.
Yuta TakeshimaDivision of Innovative Cancer Therapy, Advanced Research Center, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Taketo KawaiDepartment of Urology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Itabashi-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaki NakamuraDepartment of Urology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Shinagawa-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Jun KameiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Satoru TaguchiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yoshiyuki AkiyamaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yusuke SatoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Daisuke YamadaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Fumihiko UrabeDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hideyo MiyazakiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yutaka EnomotoDepartment of Urology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi FukuharaDepartment of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.
Tohru NakagawaDepartment of Urology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Itabashi-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Tetsuya FujimuraDepartment of Urology, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke-Shi, Tochigi-Ken, Japan.
Haruki KumeDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A total of 739 patients underwent RARP as initial treatment for PCa from November 2011 to October 2018. Data on BCR status, clinical and pathological parameters were collected from the clinical records. After excluding cases with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies, presence of lymph node or distant metastasis, and positive SM, a total of 537 cases were eligible for the final analysis. The median follow-up of experimental cohort was 28.0 (interquartile: 18.0-43.0) months. We identified the presence of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP-GG) ≥ 4 (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.20, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 1.70-6.03, P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.00-4.12, P = 0.049), perineural invasion (HR 10.7, 95% CI 1.45-79.9, P = 0.020), and maximum tumor diameter (MTD) > 20 mm (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.01-3.70, P = 0.047) as significant factors of BCR in the multivariate analysis. We further developed a risk model according to these factors. Based on this model, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year BCR-free survival were 100%, 98.9%, 98.9% in the low-risk group; 99.1%, 94.1%, 86.5% in the intermediate-risk group; 93.9%, 84.6%, 58.1% in the high-risk group. Internal validation using the bootstrap method showed a c-index of 0.742 and an optimism-corrected c-index level of 0.731. External validation was also carried out using an integrated database derived from 3 other independent institutions including a total of 387 patients for the final analysis. External validation showed a c-index of 0.655. In conclusion, we identified risk factors of biochemical failure in patients showing negative surgical margin after RARP and further developed a risk model using these risk factors.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsProstate-Specific AntigenNegative surgical marginNon-metastaticProstate cancerRARPRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID38556562
PMCPMC10982299

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.