ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Contemporary validation of cT1a vs. cT1b substaging of incidental prostate cancer.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Years of Life Lost in Incidental Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe cT1a vs. cT1b substratification was introduced in 1992 but never formally tested since. We tested the discriminative ability of cT1a vs. cT1b substaging on cancer-specific survival (CSS) in contemporary incidental prostate cancer (PCa) patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsIncidental (cT1a/cT1b) PCa patients were identified within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier estimates, as well as uni- and multivariable Cox regression models predicted CSS at five years. Subgroup analyses addressed CSS at five years according to active vs. no local treatment (NLT) as well as Gleason score sum (GS; 6 vs. 7 vs. ≥ 8). RESULTS AND LIMITATION: We identified a total of 5,155 incidental prostate cancer patients of which 3,035 (59%) were stage cT1a vs. 2,120 (41%) were stage cT1b. In all incidental PCa patients, CSS at five years was 95% (95% CI 0.94-0.96). In cT1a patients, CSS at five years was 98 vs. 90% in cT1b patients (p < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, cT1b independently predicted 2.8-fold higher CSM than cT1a (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.8-3.6, p < 0.001) for incidental PCa patients who underwent NLT. In subgroup analyses, cT1b represented an independent predictor of higher CSM in GS ≥ 8 (HR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-6.2, p = 0.003), and GS 7 (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.6-9.7 p = 0.002) patients who underwent NLT. For actively treated patients, cT1b was not independently associated with worse CSM.
conclusionThe historical subclassification of cT1a vs. cT1b in incidental PCa patients displayed a strong ability to discriminate CSS in contemporary GS 7 and GS ≥ 8 patients who underwent NLT. However, no statistically significant difference was recorded in actively treated patients. In consequence, the importance of the current substage stratification predominantly applies to GS ≥ 8 patients who undergo a non-active treatment approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38679642What 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.