Association between author specialty and reported outcomes in nonrandomized comparisons of prostatectomy versus radiation

Clicks: 36
ID: 319503
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #44 of 78 articles by views in jnci cancer spectrum

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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 nonrandomized 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 nonrandomized 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 = 0.01) and urology author specialty (p = 0.01) 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 = 0.006). 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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167034448 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Zakaria El Kouzi, Mohammed A. Mohammed, Michael K. Rooney, Ramez Kouzy, Jie Jane Chen, Shalin Shah, Tarek Al Bitar, Sherif M. Gadoue, Comron Hassanzadeh, Steven Frank, Phuoc Tho Tran, Chad Tang, Seungtaek Choi, Ryan J. Park, Karen Hoffman, Sean E. McGuire, H K Mok, Quynh-Nhu Nguyen, Adam B Samman, Zain Rahman, Mohamed Shelan, T A Eid, Osama Mohamad
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal jnci cancer spectrum
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jncics/pkag069
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkag069
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.