ArticleBJU international2026
Patient-reported outcomes: active surveillance vs radical therapies in low-risk prostate cancer.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively evaluate functional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS), nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NS-RP), non-NS-RP, or radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND
methodsThis multicentre prospective cohort study used data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, including 6265 patients with low-risk PCa enrolled between 2016 and 2023. PROs were assessed at baseline and 12 months after treatment/enrolment using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26), measuring urinary continence, bowel, sexual, hormonal, and irritative/obstructive symptoms. Mean score changes were compared with minimal important differences (MIDs) to determine clinical significance.
resultsIn all, 475, 4352, 813, and 625 patients received AS, NS-RP, non-NS-RP, and RT, respectively. At 12 months, AS was associated with stable function across all EPIC-26 domains. In contrast, both RP groups experienced significant declines in urinary continence (NS-RP: -18 points; non-NS-RP: -26 points) and sexual function (NS-RP: -35 points; non-NS-RP: -30 points), exceeding MID thresholds. Urinary continence did not decline after RT but clinically relevant declines occurred in irritative/obstructive urinary (-5 points), bowel (-7 points), hormonal (-5 points), and sexual function (-12 points). Age-stratified analysis showed clinically significant declines in urinary and sexual function after NS-RP across all age groups, with the greatest loss in sexual function among younger patients and the most pronounced continence impairment in the 70-79 years age group. In contrast, functional outcomes under AS remained stable in all age cohorts.
conclusionActive surveillance is underutilised in the observed cohort. Prospective PCO data demonstrates that AS preserves urinary continence and sexual function compared to active treatment, supporting its role as the first-line strategy for suitable candidates. Despite advancements including NS techniques, RP, and to a lesser extent RT, remain associated with substantial functional impairment even in younger men.
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.