ArticleBJU international2026
Long-term oncological outcomes from a prospective cohort of patients with localised 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo report long-term oncological outcomes for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) treated with contemporary modalities in a population-based United States cohort. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study prospectively enrolled men with clinically localised PCa from 2011 to 2012. Patients were stratified into two groups: favourable prognosis (clinical T stage [cT]1-T2a/bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level ≤ 20 ng/mL, Grade Group 1-2) and unfavourable prognosis (cT2cN0M0, PSA level 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5). Main outcomes were PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), composite progression to advanced disease (metastasis, PCSM event, or systemic therapy), and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates.
resultsOf the 2604 men included, 73% were White, 15% Black, and 7% Hispanic. All hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates using multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray models. In the favourable group, compared with surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT; HR 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.1, P < 0.01), brachytherapy (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.3, P < 0.01), and active surveillance (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P = 0.02) were associated with higher all-cause mortality; the 10-year cumulative incidence of PCSM was ≤1.5% for all five strategies, and progression did not differ. In the unfavourable group, EBRT was associated with worse OS (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.3, P < 0.01), with no adjusted differences in PCSM (10-year cumulative incidence 3.5% after surgery vs 8.8% after EBRT) or progression across treatments.
conclusionIn this population-based cohort treated with contemporary modalities, the 10-year risk of PCa death was low across all treatment strategies, including active surveillance. OS differences favouring surgery likely reflect residual confounding from baseline health and treatment selection. These findings underscore the importance of patient values and comorbidities in shared decision-making for localised PCa.
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.