Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40844873›Full record

ArticleBJU international2025

Treatment variations in localised prostate cancer in Australia and New Zealand: a registry study.

Karen Chiam, Albert Bang, Visalini Nair-Shalliker, Michael Caruana, Manish I Patel, Shomik Sengupta, Ian Vela, Andrew Kneebone, Henry Woo, Michael O'Callaghan and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Karen ChiamThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8154-6731
Albert BangThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Visalini Nair-ShallikerThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6277-5125
Michael CaruanaSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Manish I PatelSpeciality of Surgery, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shomik SenguptaDepartment of Urology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3357-1216
Ian VelaDepartment of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Andrew KneeboneFaculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Henry WooDepartment of Urology, Blacktown and Mount Druitt Hospitals, Blacktown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4099-0339
Michael O'CallaghanCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5038-5859
Braden HiggsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alex JayUrology Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Karen CanfellSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David P SmithThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Movember Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the patterns of care and factors associated with treatment uptake of localised prostate cancer, using the bi-national Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) database.

methodsData for 36 504 patients, diagnosed between 2015 and 2018, from New Zealand and seven Australian jurisdictions were evaluated. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the likelihood of receiving no active treatment, radiotherapy (RT), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and combined ADT + RT, compared to radical prostatectomy (RP).

resultsThe most common disease risk group and treatment were intermediate-risk disease (49.2%) and RP (40.3%). Men with low-risk disease were mostly managed by no active treatment (81.5%). Compared to men treated with RP, the likelihood of receiving other treatments was higher in residents from regional areas, those from lower socio-economic status (SES) areas and those diagnosed at regional or public hospitals. Being in the lowest SES group was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.84, (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-2.02) of having no active treatment, an OR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.32-1.78) for RT, an OR of 2.66 (95% CI 2.10-3.36) for ADT and an OR of 2.56 (95% CI 2.23-2.93) for ADT + RT.

conclusionsFactors related to SES and hospital provider were associated with treatment choices in localised prostate cancer patients, independent of their age or disease risk classification.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAgedAndrogen AntagonistsAustraliaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandProstatectomyRegistriesAndrogen Antagonistspatterns of carepopulation healthprostate cancerregistrytreatments

Identifiers

PMID40844873
PMCPMC12594272

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.