Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39263349›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2024

Observation With or Without Subsequent Salvage Therapy for Pathologically Node-positive Prostate Cancer With Negative Conventional Imaging: Results From a Large Multicenter Cohort.

Giancarlo Marra, Federico Lesma, Gabriele Montefusco, Claudia Filippini, Jonathan Olivier, Andres Affentranger, Josias Bastian Grogg, Thomas Hermanns, Luca Afferi, Christian D Fankhauser and 24 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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

34 authors.

Giancarlo MarraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Federico LesmaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Gabriele MontefuscoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Claudia FilippiniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Jonathan OlivierDepartment of Urology, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Andres AffentrangerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Josias Bastian GroggDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas HermannsDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Luca AfferiDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Christian D FankhauserDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Agostino MatteiDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Bartosz MalkiewiczUniversity Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Simone ScuderiUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Francesco BarlettaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Sebastian GallinaDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Fabio ZattoniDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Fabrizio Dal MoroDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Wever LiekeDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.
Timo SoeterikDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherland.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna, Austria.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna, Austria.
Lara Rodriguez-SanchezDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Rossella NicolettiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Mohamed AhmedDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
R Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michael LadurnerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Alberto BrigantiUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Giorgio GandagliaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Young Academic Urologists Prostate Cancer Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: More than 10% of patients with negative clinical metastatic status (cN0M0) on conventional imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) harbor lymph node involvement (pN+) at final pathology following radical prostatectomy (RP) and lymphadenectomy. Our aim was to assess outcomes of initial observation for cN0M0 pN+ PCa and identify prognostic factors that may help in clinical decision-making. Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients with cN0M0 PCa on conventional imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and a bone scan) who were found to have pN+ disease at RP between 2000 and 2021. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and systemic progression/recurrence were the primary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival and multivariate analysis. Key findings and limitations: A total of 469 men were included in this retrospective multicenter trial. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 10.1 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 6.6-18.0). Among these patients, 56% had grade group ≥4, 53.7% had stage ≥pT3b, 42.6% had positive margins, and 19.6% had PSA persistence. The median number of positive nodes and of nodes removed were 1 (IQR 1-3) and 20 (14-28), respectively. At median follow-up of 41 mo, 48.5% experienced BCR. The 5-yr BCR-free survival rate was 31.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.33-37.1%). Salvage treatments were needed in 211 patients and included radiotherapy (RT; Conclusions: Initial observation in the management of pN+ cN0M0 PCa is feasible and has excellent survival rates in the intermediate term. Patients with worse disease features, especially PSA persistence, have a higher likelihood of recurrence and progression and may be candidates for more aggressive upfront management. Patient summary: We investigated the value of initial observation for men with prostate cancer with negative scan findings for metastasis who were then found to have positive lymph nodes after surgery to remove the prostate. Our results show that initial observation is a good option for patients with less aggressive prostate cancer features.

Indexed as

Negative conventional imagingObservationPositive lymph nodesProstate cancerSalvage therapies

Identifiers

PMID39263349
PMCPMC11387258

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.