ArticleThe Prostate2026
Years of Life Lost in Incidental Prostate Cancer.
Article in The Prostate, 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.
- Years of Life Lost in Incidental Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unknown how survival is prematurely curtailed by incidental prostate cancer (IPCa). We aimed to quantify the average years of life lost (YLL) due to IPCa.
methodsWithin the SEER database 2004-2021, IPCa patients aged 45-75 were identified. Stratification was based on the Gleason sum, clinical stage, and active treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) status. Monte Carlo simulated individual survival according to the Social Security Administration life tables. Subsequently, YLL was compared between IPCa patients versus controls using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsOf 7324 IPCa patients, 1926 (26.7%) and 5398 (73.7%) received active treatment or no active treatment, respectively. Compared to population controls, IPCa patients exhibited a survival disadvantage of 0.23 YLL (p < 0.001). Patients without active treatment exhibited a larger survival disadvantage of 0.25 YLL, compared to patients with active treatment (0.18 YLL). In subgroup analyses, the largest YLL disadvantage was observed in patients not receiving active treatment with Gleason sum 8-10 (2.67 YLL), clinical stage T1b (0.83 YLL), and both (Gleason sum 8-10, T1b: 3.02 YLL). Conversely, in active treatment patients with Gleason sum ≤ 7 and/or T1a, no YLL disadvantage was observed.
conclusionsIPCa patients with advanced Gleason sum or clinical stage exhibited substantial YLL disadvantages, when they did not benefit from active treatment. Therefore, these patients should receive active treatment. Conversely, omitting active treatment in low-risk IPCa patients did not impact premature death.
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.