The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Recommendations by Urologists and Radiation Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Abstract
CONTEXT: Multiple treatment options are available for men with prostate cancer, but therapeutic recommendations may differ depending on the type of specialist they consult. OBJECTIVE: To define and contrast the distribution of management recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for a spectrum of men with prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mail survey sent in 1998 to a random sample of physicians in the United States, who were listed as urologists (response rate 64%, n=504) and radiation oncologists (response rate 76%, n=559) in the American Medical Association Registry of Physicians and practicing at least 20 hours per week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Questionnaire addressing beliefs and practices regarding prostate cancer management. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of radiation oncologists vs 16% of urologists would recommend routine prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 80 years and older. For men with moderately differentiated, clinically localized cancers, and a more than 10-year life expectancy, 93% of urologists chose radical prostatectomy as the preferred treatment option, while 72% of radiation oncologists believed surgery and external beam radiotherapy were equivalent treatments. For most tumor grades and prostate-specific antigen levels, both specialty groups were significantly more likely to recommend the treatment in their specialty than the other treatment. Both groups reported giving patients similar estimates of the risks of complications due to surgery and radiation. Neither group favored watchful waiting in their treatment management except for a subset of men with life expectancies of less than 10 years and cancers with very favorable prognoses (Gleason score of 3 or 4 and prostate-specific antigen level </=5 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, while urologists and radiation oncologists do agree on a variety of issues regarding detection and treatment of prostate cancer, specialists overwhelmingly recommend the therapy that they themselves deliver. JAMA. 2000;283:3217-3222
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hoffmann, T. C., & Del Mar, C. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016 · Cited by 707
Potosky, A. L., Davis, W. W., Hoffman, R. M., Stanford, J. L., Stephenson, R. A., Penson, D. F., & Harlan, L. C. (2004) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh259 · Cited by 680
Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making.
Loewenstein, G. (2005) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.s49 · Cited by 503
Prostate-Specific–Antigen Testing for Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
Barry, M. J. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200105033441806 · Cited by 438
Denberg, T. D., Kim, F. J., Flanigan, R. C., Fairclough, D., Beaty, B. L., Steiner, J. F., & Hoffman, R. M. (2006) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000233684.27657.36 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Fowler, Jr.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-06-28
- Volume
- 283
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 3217
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2112281431
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Recommendations by Urologists and Radiation Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.24.3217
- The paper
- Fowler, Jr. (2000). Comparison of Recommendations by Urologists and Radiation Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.24.3217
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.