ArticleBritish journal of cancer2019
Understanding of prognosis in non-metastatic prostate cancer: a randomised comparative study of clinician estimates measured against the PREDICT prostate prognostic model.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comprehensive analysis of cholesterol metabolism-related genes in prostate cancer: integrated analysis of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Optimizing clinical risk stratification of localized prostate cancer.Current opinion in urology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Estimating the Effect of Radical Prostatectomy: Combining Data From the SPCG4 and PIVOT Randomized Trials With Contemporary Cohorts.The Journal of urology · 2024Article
- Prostate cancer genotyping for risk stratification and precision treatment.Current urology · 2024Review
- Shifting the paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision-making.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Nomograms to predict the prognosis in locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma after curative resection.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Prostate cancer treatment choices: the GP's role in shared decision making.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PREDICT Prostate is an individualised prognostic model that provides long-term survival estimates for men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer ( www.prostate.predict.nhs.uk ). In this study clinician estimates of survival were compared against model predictions and its potential value as a clinical tool was assessed. Prostate cancer (PCa) specialists were invited to participate in the study. 190 clinicians (63% urologists, 17% oncologists, 20% other) were randomised into two groups and shown 12 clinical vignettes through an online portal. Each group viewed opposing vignettes with clinical information alone, or alongside PREDICT Prostate estimates. 15-year clinician survival estimates were compared against model predictions and reported treatment recommendations with and without seeing PREDICT estimates were compared. 155 respondents (81.6%) reported counselling new PCa patients at least weekly. Clinician estimates of PCa-specific mortality exceeded PREDICT estimates in 10/12 vignettes. Their estimates for treatment survival benefit at 15 years were over-optimistic in every vignette, with mean clinician estimates more than 5-fold higher than PREDICT Prostate estimates. Concomitantly seeing PREDICT Prostate estimates led to significantly lower reported likelihoods of recommending radical treatment in 7/12 (58%) vignettes, particularly in older patients. These data suggest clinicians overestimate cancer-related mortality and radical treatment benefit. Using an individualised prognostic tool may help reduce overtreatment.
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.