MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1093/jnci/djag248

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026

Impact of diagnostic labels and management benefit-to-harms information for low-risk prostate pathology.

Bell Katy J L, Boroumand Farzaneh, Wu Zhuohan, Wilt Timothy J, Parker Lisa, Millar Jeremy, Smith Jenna, McCaffery Kirsten, Brodersen John Brandt, Dahm Philipp, Delahunt Brett, Glasziou Paul, Warden Andrew, Diller Lawrence, van Rensburg Christo, Nickel Brooke

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of diagnostic labels and management benefit-to-harms information for low-risk prostate pathology.

METHODS

Two factorial (3x2) online hypothetical experiments randomised participants 11:1 to three labels: "low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1", "low-risk prostate neoplasm", or "low-risk prostate lesion", with second randomisation 1:1 to high or low information on management options. Participants were Australians aged ≥50 years with a prostate (males) or with a male partner aged ≥50 years (females). The primary outcome was preference for management with curative-intent (prostatectomy; radiation therapy) or conservative management (PSA monitoring; active surveillance).

RESULTS

For 1340 males and 1435 females randomised April to June 2024, 50% vs 34% preferred PSA monitoring, 37% vs 46% active surveillance, 7% vs 11% prostatectomy, and 7% vs 8% radiotherapy. The "neoplasm" label reduced preference for curative-intent treatment in both males (low information Risk Difference (RD)-3.9%[95% CI:-10.5%,2.7%], high information RD: -5.2%[95% CI:-10.6%,0.2%]) and females (low information RD:-6.6% [95% CI:-14.3%,1.1%], high information RD: -2.3%[95%CI:-8.9%,4.3%]). The "lesion" label reduced preference for curative-intent treatment in females within low information groups (RD:-11.6%[95%CI:-18.9%,-4.3%]) but had minimal effect in males and in females within high information groups. High information reduced preference for curative-intent treatment within "cancer" label in both studies (males RD:-4.0%[95% CI:-10.5%,2.5%]; females RD:-10.3%[95%CI:-17.7%,-2.9%]). The combination of "neoplasm" and high information resulted in the largest effects (males RD:-9.2%[95%CI:-15.1%,-3.3%]; females RD:-12.6% [95% CI: -19.9%, -5.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Clear communication about management benefit-to-harms, and using "neoplasm" to describe low-risk prostate pathology may support conservative management choices and mitigate overtreatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR 386701;386889.

Для цитирования: Bell Katy J L, Boroumand Farzaneh, Wu Zhuohan, Wilt Timothy J, Parker Lisa, Millar Jeremy, Smith Jenna, McCaffery Kirsten, Brodersen John Brandt, Dahm Philipp, Delahunt Brett, Glasziou Paul, Warden Andrew, Diller Lawrence, van Rensburg Christo, Nickel Brooke. Impact of diagnostic labels and management benefit-to-harms information for low-risk prostate pathology.. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2026. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djag248.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.