ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2011
Furthering the prostate cancer screening debate (prostate cancer specific mortality and associated risks).
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Educational Program Based on PRECEDE Model in Promoting Prostate Cancer Screening in a Sample of Iranian Men.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Age-Specific Reference Ranges of Prostate-Specific Antigen among Saudi Men as a Representation of the Arab Population.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2019Article
- RNAs as Candidate Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers of Prostate Cancer-From Cell Line Models to Liquid Biopsies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Prostate Cancer Screening.The Medical clinics of North America · 2018Review
- Novel prostate cancer biomarkers derived from autoantibody signatures.Translational oncology · 2015Article
- Screening for prostate cancer: a study on the free and total prostate specific antigen.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for prostate cancer remains a contentious issue. As with other cancer screening programs, a key feature of the debate is verification of cancer-specific mortality reductions. Unfortunately the present evidence, two systematic reviews and six randomized controlled trials, have reported conflicting results. Furthermore, half of the studies are poor quality and the evidence is clouded by key weaknesses, including poor adherence to screening in the intervention arm or high rates of screening in the control arm. In high quality studies of prostate cancer screening (particularly prostate-specific antigen), in which actual compliance was anticipated in the study design, there is good evidence that prostate cancer mortality is reduced. The numbers needed to screen are at least as good as those of mammography for breast cancer and fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer. However, the risks associated with prostate cancer screening are considerable and must be weighed against the advantage of reduced cancer-specific mortality. Adverse events include 70% rate of false positives, important risks associated with prostate biopsy, and the serious consequences of prostate cancer treatment. The best evidence demonstrates prostate cancer screening will reduce prostate cancer mortality. It is time for the debate to move beyond this issue, and begin a well-informed discussion on the remaining complex issues associated with prostate cancer screening and appropriate management.
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.