ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Predicting contralateral extraprostatic extension in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer: a multicentric external validation study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial for decision-making in radical prostatectomy (RP), especially in nerve-sparing strategies. Martini et al. introduced a three-tier algorithm for predicting contralateral EPE in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of the study is to externally validate this model in a multicentric European cohort of patients.
methodsThe data from 208 unilateral high-risk PCa patients diagnosed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies, treated with RP between January 2016 and November 2021 at eight referral centers were collected. The evaluation of model performance involved measures such as discrimination (AUC), calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA) following TRIPOD guidelines. In addition, a comparison was made with two established multivariable logistic regression models predicting the risk of side specific EPE for assessment purposes.
resultsOverall, 38%, 48%, and 14% of patients were categorized as low, intermediate, and high-risk groups according to Martini et al.'s model, respectively. At final pathology, EPE on the contralateral prostatic lobe occurred in 6.3%, 12%, and 34% of patients in the respective risk groups. The algorithm demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.68), comparable to other multivariable logistic regression models (p = 0.3), adequate calibration and the highest net benefit in DCA. The limitations include the modest sample size, retrospective design, and lack of central revision.
conclusionOur findings endorse the algorithm's commendable performance, supporting its utility in guiding treatment decisions for unilateral high-risk PCa patients.
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.