ArticleThe oncologist2026
Global management of drug-drug interaction in patients with prostate cancer: international survey by Meet-URO group and ONCOassist.
Article in The oncologist, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with prostate cancer (PC) frequently receive multiple medications for comorbidities, increasing the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Despite guidelines highlighting DDI relevance, data on real-world management are limited. This international survey aimed to characterize current practices, barriers, and needs in this setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsA self-administered, multiple-choice online survey was sent to 3342 Italian oncologists (AIOM/Meet-URO members) and 19 139 global healthcare professionals via the ONCOassist app. A part of the survey included optional case studios completed only by Italian respondents.
resultsResponses were received by 69 healthcare professionals in Italy and 1064 worldwide. Overall, DDIs were widely recognized as clinically relevant in PC care. Digital tools (online databases and smartphone applications) were the most frequently used resources for DDI assessment in both cohorts, whereas AI-based tools were limited. Italian oncologists reported limited on-site pharmacologist access (29%), while global respondents reported more frequent pharmacologist support (76%). Common barriers included time constraints, uncertain reliability of sources, and lack of training. When DDI checkers conflicted, Italian and global respondents favored pharmacologist consultation, although global users relied also on literature (31%) and clinical judgment (26%). Proposed solutions differed between cohorts: Italian clinicians emphasized the need for greater access to pharmacologists' support, whereas the global cohort highlighted institutional training and educational initiatives. Clinical scenarios demonstrated awareness of specific DDI risks, with cautious selection of ARTAs and co-medications in line with current recommendations.
conclusionAlthough limited by potential selection bias and restricted generalizability, these findings suggest that strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration could enhance patient safety and optimize therapy outcomes.
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.