***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42). For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available. We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life. Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.
Output:

We reviewed the published research on this treatment to investigate how effective and safe it is. Unfortunately, we identified only one randomized controlled trial comparing LDR-BT versus RP. The results were considerably prone to bias. Important survival outcomes were not reported. Due to lack of research studies, it has not been proven whether patients treated with this procedure live longer than patients treated with treatment alternatives. In this single study, after the intervention, a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was similarly likely to occur after LDR-BT and RP, but this finding does not resolve the question of whether cancer was truly present again in both groups. Urinary incontinence was less frequent after LDR-BT and urinary irritation was less frequent after RP at a short-term follow up at 6 months. No results were reported at 12 and 60 months. Significant differences after long-term follow up were not identified for patient-reported outcomes. At present, the question whether LDR-BT is a favorable treatment compared to other treatment alternatives in patients with localized prostate cancer remains unanswered.