ReviewCureus2026
The Evidence-Practice Gap in Testosterone Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The contraindication to testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in men with prostate cancer (PCa) has been progressively challenged by contemporary evidence. Over recent years, increasing data suggest that TRT does not increase biochemical recurrence, disease progression, or PCa-specific mortality in carefully selected men, including those managed by active surveillance and those treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Despite this convergence in the evidence, clinical practice has lagged. Major society guidelines continue to describe the available data as inadequate; many clinicians decline TRT in any man with a history of PCa, and symptomatic hypogonadism in survivors remains undertreated. This narrative review synthesises the contemporary evidence and characterises the persistent gap between evidence and clinical practice. It examines the principal drivers of that gap, which include conservative interpretation of guideline language, medico-legal anxiety, concerns surrounding on-treatment biochemical monitoring, the absence of randomised trials in this specific population, multidisciplinary fragmentation, and limited exposure during training. A practical clinical framework for shared decision-making and on-treatment surveillance, relevant to the UK and European practice, is proposed. The review concludes that an absolute contraindication is no longer tenable in men with symptomatic hypogonadism and a history of treated PCa, and that this population deserves a contemporary, evidence-informed conversation about TRT.
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.