Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39257622›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Oncologic Outcomes of Incidental Versus Biopsy-diagnosed Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institutional Study.

Riccardo Leni, Emily A Vertosick, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Timo F W Soeterik, Joris G Heetman, Harm H E van Melick, Marco Roscigno, Giovanni La Croce, Luigi F Da Pozzo, Jonathan Olivier and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

28 authors.

Riccardo LeniDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Emily A VertosickDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Timo F W SoeterikDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Joris G HeetmanDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Harm H E van MelickDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Marco RoscignoDepartment of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Giovanni La CroceDepartment of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Luigi F Da PozzoDepartment of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Jonathan OlivierDepartment of Urology, Lille University, Lille, France.
Fabio ZattoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Matteo FaccoDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Fabrizio Dal MoroDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Peter K F ChiuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Xiaobo WuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Giulia GianniniDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Lorenzo BianchiDivision of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Luca LamparielloDivision of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Leonardo QuartaDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Francesco MontorsiDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Sigrid V CarlssonDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Giorgio GandagliaDivision of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Group

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Patients diagnosed with grade group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) following treatment for benign disease ("incidental" PCa) are typically managed with active surveillance (AS). It is not known how their outcomes compare with those observed in patients diagnosed with GG1 on biopsy. We aimed at determining whether long-term oncologic outcomes of AS for patients with GG1 PCa differ according to the type of diagnosis: incidental versus biopsy detected. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional analysis of PCa patients with GG1 on AS at eight institutions was conducted. Competing risk analyses estimated the incidence of metastases, PCa mortality, and conversion to treatment. As a secondary analysis, we estimated the risk of GG ≥2 on the first follow-up biopsy according to the type of initial diagnosis. Key findings and limitations: A total of 213 versus 1900 patients with incidental versus biopsy-diagnosed GG1 were identified. Patients with incidental cancers were followed with repeated biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging less frequently than those diagnosed on biopsy. The 10-yr incidence of treatment was 22% for incidental cancers versus 53% for biopsy (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.46, Conclusions and clinical implications: Patients with GG1 incidental PCa should be evaluated further to exclude aggressive disease, preferably with a biopsy. If no cancer is found on biopsy, then they should receive the same follow-up of a patient with a negative biopsy. Further research should confirm whether imaging and biopsies can be avoided if postoperative prostate-specific antigen is low (<1-2 ng/ml). Patient summary: We compared the outcomes of patients with low-grade prostate cancer on active surveillance according to the type of their initial diagnosis. Patients who have low-grade cancer diagnosed on a procedure to relieve urinary symptoms (incidental prostate cancer) are followed less intensively and undergo curative-intended treatment less frequently. We also found that patients with incidental prostate cancer are more likely to have no cancer on their first follow-up biopsy than patients who have low-grade cancer initially diagnosed on a biopsy. These patients have a more favorable prognosis than their biopsy-detected counterparts and should be managed the same way as patients with negative biopsies if they undergo a subsequent biopsy that shows no cancer.

Indexed as

Active surveillanceIncidental prostate cancerMetastasesSurveillance biopsies

Identifiers

PMID39257622
PMCPMC11382210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.