ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2026
Does protocol heterogeneity in active surveillance influence clinical outcomes? Insights from a multicenter prostate cancer cohort.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 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.
- Clinicopathologic profile of Filipino men with low-risk prostate cancer and predictors of unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy.Prostate international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeActive surveillance (AS) is recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but institutional variability exists in eligibility criteria, confirmatory biopsy policies, and monitoring schedules. This study assessed whether protocol heterogeneity influences surveillance duration, treatment transition, and surgical pathology outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 232 men who initiated AS between 2014 and 2016 at three institutions with distinct protocols: Hospital A (Gleason Grade Group [GGG] 1-2, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <15 ng/mL, confirmatory biopsy only if clinically indicated), Hospital B (GGG 1-2 within core limits, PSA <20 ng/mL, biennial biopsy), and Hospital C (GGG 1 within core limits, one confirmatory biopsy within 1-2 years, then biopsy if clinically indicated). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression assessed AS continuation and treatment transition, while final GGG and pathologic stage were compared among men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).
resultsMedian AS duration was 38.5 months. Five-year AS retention differed significantly: 53.2% (Hospital A), 79.8% (Hospital B), and 59.1% (Hospital C). Treatment transition occurred in 23.2%, 18.1%, and 44.0% of patients, respectively (p=0.003). Hospital B showed the lowest hazard of transition (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49 vs. Hospital A), whereas Hospital C had a higher hazard for RP (HR 1.87 vs. Hospital A). Final GGG and stage did not differ among RP specimens.
conclusionsInstitutional heterogeneity in AS protocols significantly influenced surveillance duration and treatment timing but not adverse pathology. Flexibility in protocol design may be acceptable if supported by confirmatory biopsy and risk-adapted monitoring, underscoring the need for evidence-based standardization.
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.