ArticleThe Journal of urology2012
Distribution and associations of [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen in community dwelling black and white men.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethnic differences in prostate-specific antigen levels in men without prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical use of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) and its derivatives (%p2PSA and Prostate Health Index) for the detection of prostate cancer: a review of the literature.Korean journal of urology · 2014Pooled it
- Racial disparities in prostate cancer in the UK and the USA: similarities, differences and steps forwards.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Establishment of reference intervals for serum [-2]proPSA (p2PSA), %p2PSA and prostate health index in healthy men.OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe provide cross-sectional normative data on [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen from the Olmsted County Study of Urinary Symptoms and Health Status among Men, and the Flint Men's Health Study. We also describe associations with clinical urological measures and the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsMeasurements of [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen were obtained from 420 white men from Olmsted County, Minnesota, and 328 black men from Genesee County, Michigan. Cross-sectional associations between [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen and prostate enlargement/elevated prostate specific antigen were assessed. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess associations between [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen and the incident diagnosis of prostate cancer.
resultsBaseline [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen was slightly higher in black men at a median of 6.3 pg/ml (25th, 75th percentiles 4.1, 8.9) than in white men at a median of 5.6 pg/ml (25th, 75th percentiles 3.9, 7.7, respectively, p = 0.01). Baseline [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen was highly predictive of biopsy confirmed prostate cancer in the Olmsted County Study cohort. Relative to men in the [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen lower quartile those in the upper quartile were at almost eightfold increased risk for prostate cancer (HR 7.8, 95% CI 2.2-27.8) after adjusting for age and baseline prostate specific antigen.
conclusionsIn these cohorts of community dwelling black and white men [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen was much lower than in previous studies. These data suggest that [-2]proenzyme-prostate specific antigen may help identify prostate cancer in men with serum prostate specific antigen in an indeterminate range, although the reference ranges for white and black men may differ slightly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.