↓ Skip to main content

10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 27,012)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1017 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1181 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1606220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Freddie C. Hamdy, Jenny L. Donovan, J. Athene Lane, Malcolm Mason, Chris Metcalfe, Peter Holding, Michael Davis, Tim J. Peters, Emma L. Turner, Richard M. Martin, Jon Oxley, Mary Robinson, John Staffurth, Eleanor Walsh, Prasad Bollina, James Catto, Andrew Doble, Alan Doherty, David Gillatt, Roger Kockelbergh, Howard Kynaston, Alan Paul, Philip Powell, Stephen Prescott, Derek J. Rosario, Edward Rowe, David E. Neal

Abstract

Background The comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain. Methods We compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo randomization to active monitoring (545 men), surgery (553), or radiotherapy (545). The primary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all-cause deaths. Results There were 17 prostate-cancer-specific deaths overall: 8 in the active-monitoring group (1.5 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 3.0), 5 in the surgery group (0.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2), and 4 in the radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.0); the difference among the groups was not significant (P=0.48 for the overall comparison). In addition, no significant difference was seen among the groups in the number of deaths from any cause (169 deaths overall; P=0.87 for the comparison among the three groups). Metastases developed in more men in the active-monitoring group (33 men; 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 4.5 to 8.8) than in the surgery group (13 men; 2.4 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2) or the radiotherapy group (16 men; 3.0 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.9) (P=0.004 for the overall comparison). Higher rates of disease progression were seen in the active-monitoring group (112 men; 22.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 19.0 to 27.5) than in the surgery group (46 men; 8.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 11.9) or the radiotherapy group (46 men; 9.0 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 12.0) (P<0.001 for the overall comparison). Conclusions At a median of 10 years, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned, with no significant difference among treatments. Surgery and radiotherapy were associated with lower incidences of disease progression and metastases than was active monitoring. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 625 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 1%
Australia 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 1144 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 192 16%
Other 163 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 131 11%
Student > Bachelor 102 9%
Student > Postgraduate 99 8%
Other 350 30%
Unknown 144 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 670 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 51 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 2%
Physics and Astronomy 20 2%
Other 122 10%
Unknown 238 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2706. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2020.
All research outputs
#736
of 15,377,888 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#48
of 27,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11
of 266,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#1
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,377,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 310 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.