ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2025
Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Stage-, Age-, and Frailty-Specific Cancer-Control Outcomes of 2600 Patients.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are recommended as standard treatments for prostate cancer. The prospective comparisons available to date provide only limited information.
methodsWe used data from the database of our university cancer center to compare the metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients with prostate cancer who underwent either RP or RT in the period 2014-2024. Stage-, age-, and frailty-specific sensitivity analyses were carried out.
resultsOf 2685 patients with prostate cancer, 1999 (74%) underwent RP and 686 (26%) underwent RT. The RP patients were younger (66 vs. 74 years); a higher percentage of the RP patients than of the RT patients had high-risk prostate cancer (60% vs. 43%), stage cT3 (47% vs. 9.6%), and stage cN1 (11 vs. 5.2%), while the RT patients more commonly had ECOG status 1-2 (16% vs. 6.7%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). Univariate analyses of MFS mostly favored RT, while univariate analyses of OS mostly favored RP. These differences, however, were no longer seen after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics in multivariable Cox regression models, nor were they seen in sensitivity analyses of D'Amico risk groups, age categories, or ECOG status. Lastly, in 2:1 propensity-score-matched analyses, no differences between RP and RT were found in any of the oncol - ogical outcome measures (p≥0.15 for MFS, CSS, and OS).
conclusionThe findings of this real-world study of prostate cancer patients who underwent either RP or RT suggest equally effective cancer control by the two methods when the statistical analysis is adjusted for patient and tumor characteristics. At present, patients with high-risk prostate cancer und unfavorable disease stages more commonly undergo RP.
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.