Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23486455›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN2013

Counterpoint: Prostate-specific antigen velocity is not of value for early detection of cancer.

Andrew J Vickers

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org

Funding

SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JAMES A EASTHAM · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629NCI NIH HHS P50 CA92629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Firm evidence shows that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity is statistically associated with many prostate cancer outcomes, including those related to early detection. However, the clinical use of a marker depends on clinical and statistical significance. Before PSA velocity is used to inform decisions such as whether to perform a biopsy, evidence should be clear that doing so would improve clinical outcome. A systematic review on PSA velocity found that almost no studies had evaluated whether PSA velocity aids in clinical decision-making. Since that time, several reports have indicated that including PSA in a statistical model alongside standard predictors (eg, PSA, digital rectal examination) does not improve predictive accuracy. Specifically, performing a biopsy on men with high PSA velocity in the absence of other indications, as recommended by the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Prostate Cancer Early Detection, would lead to many millions of unnecessary biopsies, without a corresponding number of aggressive cancers being detected. Advocates of PSA velocity have been reduced to citing a single article claiming that PSA velocity aids in clinical decision-making. The article involves selective reporting of an unusual subgroup analysis based on an extremely limited number of events. This is not to say that, in clinical practice, urologists should ignore prior PSA values: clinical judgment can be aided by careful longitudinal evaluation of PSA changes, interpreted in the context of symptoms and treatments. However, the literature clearly shows that simplistic application of PSA velocity cutoffs is not of value for early detection of prostate cancer.

Indexed as

HumansKallikreinsMaleProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID23486455
PMCPMC4054698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.