ArticleCancers2022
Utility of the Age Discrepancy between Frailty-Based Biological Age and Expected Life Age in Patients with Urological Cancers.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gross hematuria in nonagenarians admitted to a urological ward: prevalence, predictors, and outcomes.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Should clinical trials about prostate cancer assess the frailty as an endpoint?International urology and nephrology · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The estimation of biological age is challenging in patients with cancers. We aimed to investigate frailty-based biological ages using frailty-discriminant scores (FDS) and examined the effect of biological-expected life age discrepancy on the prognosis of patients with urological cancers. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated frailty in 1035 patients having urological cancers. Their frailty-based biological age was then defined by the FDS, which is a comprehensive frailty assessment tool, using 1790 noncancer individuals as controls. An expected life age (=chronological age + life expectancy) was subsequently calculated using the 2019 life expectancy table. The primary outcome was the estimation of the biological-expected life age discrepancy between the frailty-based biological age and expected life age in patients with urological cancers. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of the effect of the biological-expected life age discrepancy on overall survival. Results: We included 405, 466, and 164 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma, respectively. The median chronological age, life expectancy, and estimated frailty-based biological age were 71, 17, and 83 years, respectively. The biological-expected life age discrepancy in any urological cancers, localized diseases, and metastatic diseases was −4.8, −6.3, and +0.15 years, respectively. The biological-expected life age discrepancy of >5 years was significantly associated with poor overall survival. Conclusions: The biological-expected life age discrepancy between frailty-based biological age and expected life age may be helpful in understanding the role of frailty and patient/doctor conversation.
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.