Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42004831›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Who, When, and How: Watchful Waiting in the ERSPC Rotterdam.

Jeroen J Lodder, Esmée F H Mulder, Sebastiaan Remmers, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Chris H Bangma, Monique J Roobol, ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Jeroen J LodderDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Esmée F H MulderDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Long-term data identifying which patients managed with watchful waiting (WW) ultimately require androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are limited. Using 18-yr follow-up data from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study for Prostate Cancer, we examined WW practices and identified prognostic factors for ADT initiation. Methods: Men whose initial management strategy was WW were included and stratified by European Association of Urology risk group. WW practices were evaluated by the frequency of follow-up visits, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and imaging. Prognostic factors for ADT initiation were identified using a Fine-Gray competing risk model and used to predict 18-yr ADT-free survival for three hypothetical patients representing the risk groups. Key findings and limitations: We included 537 men with a median follow-up of 12.9 yr (interquartile range: 7.5-16.7). At 18 yr, cumulative incidence of ADT initiation was 6.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-13), 33% (95% CI 26-39), and 55% (95% CI 47-64) in men at low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. Most patients received regular follow-up every 6 mo, regardless of risk group, whereas imaging was uncommon except in men at higher risk. PSA, grade group, and clinical T-stage were statistically significant predictors of ADT initiation. Predicted 18-yr ADT-free survival ranged from 90% in men at low risk to 35% in men at high risk. Limitations include the retrospective design, use of ADT initiation as an end point without standardized triggers, and a historical cohort, possibly affecting internal validity and generalizability. Conclusions and clinical implications: Follow-up for men managed with WW could be individualized based on patient and tumor characteristics to reduce unnecessary visits while preserving timely detection of progression.

Indexed as

Androgen deprivation therapyProstate cancerRisk stratificationWatchful waiting

Identifiers

PMID42004831
PMCPMC13084745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.