ArticleCancer medicine2024
The survival outcomes of localized low-risk prostate cancer, a population-based study using NCDB.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big Data Analytics in Urologic Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Large-scale Database Research and Clinical Applications.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Association of Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index With Survival Following Upfront Laryngectomy for Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Article
- The survival outcomes of localized low-risk prostate cancer, a population-based study using NCDB.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal treatment approach for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) remains controversial. While active surveillance is an increasingly popular option, definitive local treatments, including radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and prostate seed implantation (PSI), are also commonly used. This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of patients with LRPC using a large patient population from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).
methodsWe analyzed data from 195,452 patients diagnosed with LRPC between 2004 and 2015 using the NCDB. Patients were classified based on their treatment modalities, including RP, EBRT, PSI, or no local treatment (NLT). Only patients with Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores of 0 or 1 were included to ensure comparability. Propensity score analysis was used to balance the treatment groups, and the accelerated failure time model was used to analyze the survival rates of the treatment groups.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 70.8 months, 24,545 deaths occurred, resulting in an all-cause mortality rate of 13%. RP demonstrated a survival benefit compared with NLT, particularly in patients younger than 74 years of age. In contrast, radiation treatments (EBRT and PSI) did not improve survival in the younger age groups, except for patients older than 70 years for EBRT and older than 65 years for PSI. Notably, EBRT in patients younger than 65 years was associated with inferior outcomes.
conclusionThis study highlights the differences in survival outcomes among LRPC treatment modalities. RP was associated with improved survival compared to NLT, especially in younger patients. In contrast, EBRT and PSI showed survival benefits primarily in the older age groups. NLT is a reasonable choice, particularly in younger patients when RP is not chosen. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized treatment decisions for LRPC management.
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.