SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2026
The Radical Prostatectomy Versus Brachytherapy for the Management of Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies Focusing on Oncological Outcomes.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and brachytherapy (BT) in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and determine whether one treatment demonstrates superiority over the other.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library, to identify relevant clinical studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted, with HRs >1 indicating RP superiority and HRs <1 indicating BT superiority. Outcomes assessed included biochemical relapse-free survival (BCRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (CRFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Statistical analyses, including heterogeneity, publication bias, and risk of bias, were performed using R Studio 4.3.3 and Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.
resultA total of seven studies involving 5663 patients were included in the analysis, with 2389 patients receiving brachytherapy (BT) and 3274 undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). The pooled results demonstrated that BT was associated with significantly better biochemical relapse-free survival (BCRFS) compared to RP, with an HR of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89; p<0.01). Although clinical relapse-free survival (CRFS) also favored BT, the result was not statistically significant (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77-1.05; p=0.17). For overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), the differences between the two treatment modalities were not statistically significant, with HRs of 1.08 (95% CI: 0.87-1.34; p=0.50) and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.82-1.36; p=0.70), respectively. Subgroup analyses based on risk stratification and follow-up duration revealed variability in treatment outcomes, particularly favoring BT in certain intermediate-risk groups.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that brachytherapy may offer superior outcomes in biochemical and clinical relapse-free survival compared to radical prostatectomy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, no significant differences were observed in overall survival or cancer-specific survival, highlighting the need for individualized treatment decision-making based on patient risk profiles and preferences.
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.