ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Surgery versus radiation for clinically positive nodal prostate cancer in an other cause mortality risk weighted cohort.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examined cancer control metrics between surgery and radiation for clinically positive nodal prostate cancer in an other-cause mortality weighted cohort, to circumvent limitations in previous studies.
methodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Research Plus database was queried to identify men with clinically positive nodal prostate cancer at diagnosis between 2004 and 2017 who were treated with surgery or radiation. A competing-risks regression model was used to calculate the 10-year other-cause mortality risk using available covariates, including treatment type. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was then used to balance covariates, including other-cause mortality risk. Then, competing-risks cumulative incidence curves and multivariable models, which were weighted on the calculated other-cause mortality risk, were used to examine the impact of treatment type on cancer-specific mortality, after accounting for covariates.
results4739 patients underwent surgery whereas 1039 underwent radiation. The median follow-up was 4.7 years (2.6-8.2). Other-cause mortality was statistically different between treatment arms in the unweighted cohort (Gray's p = 0.005), but that difference disappeared in the weighted cohort (Gray's p = 0.2). At 10 years, the cancer-specific mortality rate was 27.6% (22.2-33.9) for radiation versus 18.1% (16.2-20.3) for surgery (p < 0.001). On competing-risks multivariable analysis, radiation had 1.86-fold (95% CI 1.69-2.12) higher hazard likelihood from one year to the next compared to surgery (p < 0.001).
conclusionClinically positive nodal patients treated with radiation fare worst cancer-specific mortality than those that underwent surgery, using calculated other-cause mortality risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39528898What 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.