ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023
Estimating patient health in prostate cancer treatment counseling.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiometabolic comorbidities and prostate cancer risk: evidence from the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Patients' Preferences and Expectations in Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the concordance among urologists' judgment of health quartiles for patients with localized prostate cancer, and compared the life expectancy (LE) and ensuing treatment recommendations when following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines based on actuarial life tables versus the Kent model, a validated LE prediction model.
methodsNCCN suggests using actuarial life tables and relying on surgeon assessment of patient health to increase (for the best quartile) or decrease (for the worst quartile) LE by 50%. Eleven urologic surgeons allocated quartile of health and recommended treatments for ten patient vignettes. The 10-year survival probability was calculated using the Kent model and compared to the life-table estimate based on health quartile by surgeon consensus.
resultsSurgeon assessment agreed with the presumed true quartile of health based on a validated model in 41% of cases. For no case did three-quarters of surgeons assign health quartile correctly; in half of cases, <50% of surgeons assigned the correct quartile. The NCCN comorbidity-adjusted LE estimates underestimated risk of death in the best health quartile and overestimated risk of death in the worst health quartile, compared to the Kent model. Patients with LE > 10 years on NCCN estimation were recommended more frequently for surgery (81%) and those with ≤10 years estimated LE were more commonly recommended for radiation (57%) or observation (29%).
conclusionsA method based on physician-assessed health quartiles for LE estimation, as suggested by the NCCN guidelines, appears too crude to be used in the treatment counseling of men with localized prostate cancer, as compared to a validated prediction model, such as the Kent model.
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.