Trial reportCancer2026
Effect of demographic characteristics on the outcome of prostate cancer salvage radiotherapy: Analysis from a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Cancer, 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.
- Trial
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
backgroundThis study investigated the impact of advanced molecular imaging, race, socioeconomic status, and metabolic dysregulation on the outcome of salvage radiotherapy (sRT) for prostate cancer recurrence in a clinical trial setting.
methodsThe authors randomized post-prostatectomy men with detectable prostate-specific antigen to sRT guided by conventional imaging (arm A) or
resultsEighty-one (AAM = 29, MOR = 52) and 76 (AAM = 26, MOR = 50) men completed per-protocol sRT in arms A and B, respectively. Across study arms, AAM showed a higher FFS rate than MOR (72.8% [95% CI, 53.8%-85.0%] vs. 58.7% [95% CI, 46.6%-68.9%]; p = .002). In arm A, FFS rate was better for AAM than MOR, (64.0% [95% CI, 34.4%-82.9%] vs. 45.3% [95% CI, 28.8%-60.4%]; p = .008). In arm B, FFS improved for both groups but less so for AAM, (81.5% [95% CI, 57.2%-92.7%] vs. 73.0% [95% CI, 56.3%-84.1%]; p = .131). The authors found lower SES scores and higher AL scores for AAM in both study arms than MOR.
conclusionDespite lower socioeconomic status and higher burden of metabolic dysregulation, in a clinical trial setting that controls for disparities in health care access, AAM have a more favorable sRT outcome than MOR.
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.