Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42465160›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

The Evidence-Practice Gap in Testosterone Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Mohammed Aly, Anisha Joseph, Tarik Amer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mohammed AlyUrology, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Glasgow, GBR.
Anisha JosephInternal Medicine, National Health Service (NHS) Grampian, Aberdeen, GBR.
Tarik AmerUrology, National Health Service (NHS) Fife, Kircaldy, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

active surveillanceevidence-based practicehypogonadismprostate cancershared decision-makingsurvivorshiptestosterone replacement therapy (trt)

Identifiers

PMID42465160
PMCPMC13375016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.