INTRODUCTION: : We assess physicians' ability to accurately predict life expectancies. In prostate cancer this prediction is especially important as it affects screening decisions. No previous studies have examined accuracy in the context of real cases and concrete end points. METHODS: : Seven clinical scenarios were summarized from charts of deceased patients. We recruited 100 medical professionals to review these scenarios and estimate each patient's life expectancy. Responses were analyzed with respect to the patients' actual survival end points, then stratified based on the demographic information provided. RESULTS: : Respondent factors, such as sex, level of training, location of work or specialty, made no significant difference on prediction accuracy. Furthermore, respondents were typically pessimistic in their estimations with a negative linear trend between estimated life expectancy and actual survival. Overall, respondents were within 1 year of actual life expectancy only 15.9% of the time; on average, respondents were 67.4% inaccurate in relation to actual survival. If framed in terms of correctly identifying which patients would live more than or less than 10 years (dichotomous accuracy), physicians were correct 68.3% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: : Physicians do poorly at predicting life expectancy and tend to underestimate how long patients have left to live. This overall inaccuracy raises the question of whether physicians should refine screening and treatment criteria, find a better proxy or dispose of the criteria altogether.
INTRODUCTION: : We assess physicians' ability to accurately predict life expectancies. In prostate cancer this prediction is especially important as it affects screening decisions. No previous studies have examined accuracy in the context of real cases and concrete end points. METHODS: : Seven clinical scenarios were summarized from charts of deceased patients. We recruited 100 medical professionals to review these scenarios and estimate each patient's life expectancy. Responses were analyzed with respect to the patients' actual survival end points, then stratified based on the demographic information provided. RESULTS: : Respondent factors, such as sex, level of training, location of work or specialty, made no significant difference on prediction accuracy. Furthermore, respondents were typically pessimistic in their estimations with a negative linear trend between estimated life expectancy and actual survival. Overall, respondents were within 1 year of actual life expectancy only 15.9% of the time; on average, respondents were 67.4% inaccurate in relation to actual survival. If framed in terms of correctly identifying which patients would live more than or less than 10 years (dichotomous accuracy), physicians were correct 68.3% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: : Physicians do poorly at predicting life expectancy and tend to underestimate how long patients have left to live. This overall inaccuracy raises the question of whether physicians should refine screening and treatment criteria, find a better proxy or dispose of the criteria altogether.
Authors: Jonathan I Izawa; Laurence Klotz; D Robert Siemens; Wassim Kassouf; Alan So; John Jordan; Michael Chetner; Alla E Iansavichene Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jochen Walz; Andrea Gallina; Paul Perrotte; Claudio Jeldres; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Georg C Hutterer; Miriam Traumann; Alvaro Ramirez; Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael McCormack; Jean-Paul Perreault; Francois Bénard; Luc Valiquette; Fred Saad; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sophie Knipper; David Pröwrock; Zhe Tian; Hans Heinzer; Derya Tilki; Pierre Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Tatsuki Koyama; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Timothy J Daskivich; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; Arnold L Potosky; David F Penson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: C Luthy; A Pugliesi; E Rapiti; M Kossovsky; P Y Dietrich; C Cedraschi; A F Allaz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Simon John Christoph Soerensen; I-Chun Thomas; Bogdana Schmidt; Timothy J Daskivich; Ted A Skolarus; Christian Jackson; Thomas F Osborne; Glenn M Chertow; James D Brooks; David H Rehkopf; John T Leppert Journal: Urology Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 2.633