ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Real world comparison of adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy on cancer-control outcomes after radical prostatectomy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOutcomes of adjuvant (aRT) or salvage radiation therapy (sRT) after radical prostatectomy are under investigation regarding cancer-control outcomes.
methodsRelying on the University Cancer Center database elaborating differences in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of aRT vs. sRT-treated patients between 2014-2024. Sensitivity analyses addressed high-risk patients with pN1 and/or Gleason score 8-10 and/or pT3-4 stage.
resultsOf 1862 patients, 7.1% underwent aRT and 93% were in the sRT group. Median PSA at sRT was 0.33 ng/ml. Patients with aRT harbored significantly worse baseline tumor and pathological characteristics such as PSA level (12.0 vs. 7.6 ng/ml), Gleason score 9-10 (30% vs. 9.8%), D'Amico high risk prostate cancer (97% vs. 56%), as well as pT3-4, pN1 and positive surgical margins rates (all p < 0.001). Similar observations were made for high-risk patients. No differences were observed for aRT vs. sRT with 60-month MFS rates of 85.1% vs. 95.4% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, p = 0.18). 60-months CSS-rates of 96.8% vs. 99.1% and 60-month OS-rates of 91.0% vs. 89.1% respectively (all p ≥ 0.15). Neither sensitivity analyses of high-risk patients nor multivariable adjusted Cox regression models revealed significant differences regarding MFS, CSS or OS in aRT vs. SRT comparison (all p ≥ 0.05), despite aRT showing qualitatively better OS results.
conclusionWithin real-world setting, patients undergoing aRT harbor wore tumor characteristics. However, these differences did not translate into significant differences of mid-term oncological outcomes, relative to sRT patients. Similar observations were made within analyses of high-risk patients with pT3-4 and/or Gleason 8-10 and/or pN1 stage, nevertheless aRT showed slightly higher OS rates within this subgroup.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.