JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026
Association between author specialty and reported outcomes in non-randomized comparisons of prostatectomy versus radiation.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El Kouzi Zakaria, Mohammed Mohammed A, Rooney Michael Kevin, Kouzy Ramez, Chen Jie Jane, Shah Shalin, Al Bitar Tarek, Gadoue Sherif M, Hassanzadeh Comron, Frank Steven, Tran Phuoc Tho, Tang Chad, Choi Seungtaek, Park Ryan Jin-Hyung, Hoffman Karen, McGuire Sean Eric, Mok Henry, Nguyen Quynh-Nhu, Samman Adam B, Rahman Zain, Shelan Mohamed, Eid Toufic, Mohamad Osama
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: While the ProtecT randomized trial demonstrated comparable oncologic outcomes between radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer, several retrospective studies have reported mixed findings. In this study, we investigated whether non-randomized studies tend to favor RP or RT and assessed whether the specialty of leading authors-urologists or radiation oncologists-correlates with study conclusions.
METHODS: We identified non-randomized clinical studies published between 1993 and 2024 that compared RP and RT for localized prostate cancer and reported oncologic outcomes including biochemical, metastasis, and/or survival outcomes. Author specialty was determined based on whether the first and senior authors were affiliated with urology or radiation oncology departments. Studies in which a urologist and radiation oncologist were first and senior authors were excluded. Each study's conclusion was categorized as favoring surgery, favoring radiation, or reporting no conclusive difference in oncologic outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of study conclusions.
RESULTS: A total of 105 studies met inclusion criteria. Nearly half (44%) reported no conclusive difference in outcomes, while 42% favored RP and 14% favored RT. Multivariate analysis showed that use of national databases (P = .01) and urology author specialty (P = .01) predicted conclusions aligning with the author's specialty. In a subgroup excluding studies relying solely on biochemical recurrence-free survival outcomes, author specialty remained associated with conclusions, with urologists more likely to favor RP (P = .006).
CONCLUSION: Author specialty was associated with the direction of study conclusions. Further research is needed to understand how these patterns may influence interpretation and decision-making in prostate cancer treatment.
METHODS: We identified non-randomized clinical studies published between 1993 and 2024 that compared RP and RT for localized prostate cancer and reported oncologic outcomes including biochemical, metastasis, and/or survival outcomes. Author specialty was determined based on whether the first and senior authors were affiliated with urology or radiation oncology departments. Studies in which a urologist and radiation oncologist were first and senior authors were excluded. Each study's conclusion was categorized as favoring surgery, favoring radiation, or reporting no conclusive difference in oncologic outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of study conclusions.
RESULTS: A total of 105 studies met inclusion criteria. Nearly half (44%) reported no conclusive difference in outcomes, while 42% favored RP and 14% favored RT. Multivariate analysis showed that use of national databases (P = .01) and urology author specialty (P = .01) predicted conclusions aligning with the author's specialty. In a subgroup excluding studies relying solely on biochemical recurrence-free survival outcomes, author specialty remained associated with conclusions, with urologists more likely to favor RP (P = .006).
CONCLUSION: Author specialty was associated with the direction of study conclusions. Further research is needed to understand how these patterns may influence interpretation and decision-making in prostate cancer treatment.