Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 1 Overall survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 2 Metastases.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 2 Metastases.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 3 Local recurrence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 3 Local recurrence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 4 Biochemical relapse ITT1.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 4 Biochemical relapse ITT1.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 5 Urethral stricture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 5 Urethral stricture.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 6 Urinary incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 6 Urinary incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 7 Prostate cancer specific survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy, Outcome 7 Prostate cancer specific survival.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. International Incontinence Scale

Grade

Definition

0

dry < 1 gm (gram)

no pads

1

minimal 1 to 9 gm

1 to 4 pads (humid)

2

moderate 10 to 50 gm

1 to 4 pads (soaked)

3

severe > 50 gm

with > 4 pads
Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. International Incontinence Scale
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. RTOG/EORTC Late RT score Bladder

0

1

2

3

4

Symptom

None

Slight
epithelial
atrophy;
Minor
telangiectasia
(microscopic
hematuria)

Moderate
frequency;
Generalized
telangiectasia;
Intermittent
macroscopic
hematuria

Severe frequency and dysuria;
Severe generalized telangiectasia
(often with petechiae);
Frequent hematuria;
Reduction in bladder capacity
(< 150 cc)

Necrosis/Contracted
bladder
(capacity <100
cc);
Severe
hemorrhagic
cystitis

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. RTOG/EORTC Late RT score Bladder
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 3. HQRL ‐ dichotomous measures

Symptom

Scale

Tenderness and urgency with bowel movements

  1. normal

  2. occasionally mild

  3. frequently mild

  4. mild to moderate

  5. frequent, severe urgency, pain, or bleeding

  6. had to have a colostomy

Urinary frequency

  1. ≤ 4 times/day

  2. 5 to 8 times/day

  3. 9 to 12 times/day

  4. > 12 times/day

  5. indwelling catheter

Erectile dysfunction

  1. normal

  2. weaker

  3. insufficient

  4. unable

Global HQRL: rating of how life is affected by the state of your health

  1. extremely unpleasant

  2. unpleasant

  3. moderately unpleasant

  4. slightly unpleasant

  5. normal (no change)
Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. HQRL ‐ dichotomous measures
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 4. Definition of nadir

Study

Definition of nadir

ARO

postoperative PSA < 0.1ng/dL

EORTC

PSA < 0.2 ng/dL

SWOG

PSA ≤ 0.4 ng/dL
Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Definition of nadir
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 5. Number of men who did not nadir

Study

Number of men who did not nadir

ARO

78/388 (20%)

EORTC

108/1005 (10%)

SWOG

127/376 (33%) did not achieve PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/dL

29/376 (7%) of men did not achieve PSA ≤ 0.4ng/dL (which is the definition they used for nadir)

NB: only had PSA information for 376/425 men postoperatively
Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Number of men who did not nadir
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 6. Acute G/U toxicity (RTOG)

Grade

Symptoms

0

No change from baseline

1

urinary frequency and nocturia 2 times pretreatment habit, urgency, no medications

2

frequency, urgency and nocturia, medications required

3

frequency urgency and nocturia with spasms and frequent medications required

4

Haematuria requiring transfusion, acute bladder obstruction ulceration/necrosis

5

Death secondary to radiation side effects
Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Acute G/U toxicity (RTOG)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Overall survival Show forest plot

3

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Overall survival at 5 years

3

1737

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.03, 0.02]

1.2 Overall survival at 10 years

1

425

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.20, ‐0.02]

2 Metastases Show forest plot

3

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Metastases at 5 years

3

1737

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.01]

2.2 Metastases at 10 years

1

425

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.20, ‐0.01]

3 Local recurrence Show forest plot

2

1379

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.14, ‐0.08]

3.1 Local recurrence at 5 years

1

1005

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.13, ‐0.06]

3.2 Local recurrence at 10 years

1

374

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.21, ‐0.07]

4 Biochemical relapse ITT1 Show forest plot

3

2084

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.22, ‐0.14]

4.1 Biochemical relapse at 5 years

3

1737

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.20, ‐0.11]

4.2 Biochemical relapse at 10 years

1

347

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.39, ‐0.19]

5 Urethral stricture Show forest plot

2

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Urethral stricture at 5 years

1

307

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.02, 0.03]

5.2 Urethral stricture at 10 years

1

425

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.02, 0.15]

6 Urinary incontinence Show forest plot

2

525

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [0.01, 0.08]

6.1 Urinary incontinence at 5 years

1

100

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.02, 0.15]

6.2 Urinary incontinence at 10 years

1

425

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.00, 0.08]

7 Prostate cancer specific survival Show forest plot

1

1005

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.00]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Adjuvant RT versus nil postprostatectomy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión