Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25821151›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2015

Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies.

Katy J L Bell, Chris Del Mar, Gordon Wright, James Dickinson, Paul Glasziou

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05902637 (The Efficacy of Mapping for Cognitive Prostate Biopsy), which is not on this map. Cited by 177 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
177citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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.

NCT05902637 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Efficacy of Mapping for Cognitive Prostate Biopsy: a Prospective, Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarmara UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled175ConditionsProstate Cancer, Prostate Adenocarcinoma, Prostatic Neoplasms, Prostate DiseaseArmsPerforming cognitive prostate biopsy with a radiologist's guidance with map, Performing cognitive prostate biopsy without a radiologist's guidance with map
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

177 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

117 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katy J L BellCentre for Research in Evidence Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Chris Del MarCentre for Research in Evidence Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Gordon WrightFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
James DickinsonDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Paul GlasziouCentre for Research in Evidence Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer screening may detect nonprogressive cancers, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The potential for overdiagnosis can be assessed from the reservoir of prostate cancer in autopsy studies that report incidental prostate cancer rates in men who died of other causes. We aimed to estimate the age-specific incidental cancer prevalence from all published autopsy studies. We identified eligible studies by searches of Medline and Embase, forward and backward citation searches and contacting authors. We screened the titles and abstracts of all articles; checked the full-text articles for eligibility and extracted clinical and pathology data using standardized forms. We extracted mean cancer prevalence, age-specific cancer prevalence and validity measures and then pooled data from all studies using logistic regression models with random effects. The 29 studies included in the review dated from 1948 to 2013. Incidental cancer was detected in all populations, with no obvious time trends in prevalence. Prostate cancer prevalence increased with each decade of age, OR = 1.7 (1.6-1.8), and was higher in studies that used the Gleason score, OR = 2.0 (1.1-3.7). No other factors were significantly predictive. The estimated mean cancer prevalence increased in a nonlinear fashion from 5% (95% CI: 3-8%) at age <30 years to 59% (95% CI: 48-71%) by age >79 years. There was substantial variation between populations in estimated cancer prevalence. There is a substantial reservoir of incidental prostate cancer which increases with age. The high risk of overdiagnosis limits the usefulness of prostate cancer screening.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAutopsyHumansMalePrevalenceProstatic Neoplasmsautopsyearly detection of cancermass screeningprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25821151
PMCPMC4682465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.