ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Physician Preferences Regarding Integration of Life Expectancy in Prostate Cancer Management.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Life expectancy estimation in older men using the prostate cancer comorbidity index in VA & SEER-Medicare cohorts.Age and ageing · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines endorse specific life expectancy (LE) cutoffs for consideration of definitive management of localized prostate cancer. Previous work has shown that patients prefer numeric, patient-specific LE estimates in consultations but that physicians often do not communicate LE in such detail. The persistent overtreatment of men with limited longevity despite these guidelines may in part be related to physician-mediated factors.
objectiveTo determine physician barriers to the integration of LE in prostate cancer management, confidence in LE estimates, preferred method for LE calculation, and mode of LE communication in consultations.
designStructured interview study.
participantsMultidisciplinary cohort of 20 urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists who regularly counsel patients with prostate cancer. APPROACH: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using an open coding approach. Saliency analysis was used to describe emergent concepts. KEY
resultsPhysician-identified barriers to integration of LE in consultations included concerns about patient receptiveness (75%), the accuracy of LE prediction tools (50%), and lack of knowledge about how to effectively communicate LE (30%). There was significant heterogeneity in the sources of information used to calculate LE, with 85% using methods not incorporating a quantitative assessment of health status (55% gestalt method, 30% life tables). Most physicians had low (35%) or moderate (60%) confidence in LE predictions, which they cite as due to high variability in estimates (65%) and the need for further validation of predictive models (20%). To improve confidence in estimates, physicians wished for validated prediction tools (45%), incorporation of more variables (45%), reporting of the variability of LE estimates (30%), and molecular/genetic biomarkers (25%).
conclusionsAddressing physician concerns about patient receptiveness, lack of knowledge about effective LE communication, and lack of confidence in LE predictions may be essential to reducing overtreatment of men with limited LE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41578109What 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.