ArticleBMJ oncology2024
Tale of two zones: investigating the clinical outcomes and research gaps in peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting clinically significant prostate cancer with a distributed parameter model based on quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Understanding prostate cancer care: recent progress and future direction.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess pathological characteristics, clinical features and outcomes of patients diagnosed with peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) prostate cancer after prostatectomy. Methods and analysis: We systematically reviewed PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE. Primary endpoints were biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and distant metastases rate; secondary endpoints included clinical and pathological features. Results: Ten retrospective cohort studies were identified, six reported HRs for bRFS between PZ and TZ tumours. Patients with TZ tumours had significantly better bRFS (pooled HR 0.57 (0.47, 0.68)) than those with PZ tumours. Two studies reported a lower proportion of distant metastasis in patients diagnosed with TZ tumours compared with PZ tumours (1.5% vs 4.9% (median follow-up 7.0 years) and 0% vs 5% (median follow-up 7.8 years)). PZ tumours presented higher Gleason group and T staging more frequently, while TZ tumours were associated with higher prostate specific antigen levels at diagnosis. Conclusion: PZ tumours were associated with poorer prognostic clinical features and outcomes. Despite adjusting for poor prognostic clinical features, PZ tumours consistently showed worse clinical outcomes than TZ tumours. Our systematic review underscores the need for further research comparing PZ and TZ prostate cancer to understand the underlying differences and refine clinical practice.
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.