GuidelineUrology2016
The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening.
Guideline in Urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline of guidelines: a critical appraisal of the evidence for PSA retesting intervals.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Association between Pre-Operative Total Prostate-Specific Antigen and Survivorship of Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Comparing the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening protocols: European Association of Urology- and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-based strategies.International journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in the UK: A Decision Model Analysis Based on the CAP Trial.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Trial
- Risk of Prostate Cancer-related Death Following a Low PSA Level in the PLCO Trial.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Trial
- Screening for Prostate Cancer Starting at Age 50-54 Years. A Population-based Cohort Study.European urology · 2017Trial
- A novel nomogram incorporating lymphovascular invasion to predict lymph node invasion in high-risk prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An innovative approach for predicting prostate cancer Gleason grading: machine learning-based fusion of multimodal ultrasound, clinical and laboratory indicators.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Prostate specific antigen retesting intervals and trends in England: population based cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Age limit for familial prostate cancer screening.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Article
- Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps.BMJ oncology · 2023Review
- Prostate cancer polygenic risk score and prediction of lethal prostate cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2022Article
- Prediction of future risk of any and higher-grade prostate cancer based on the PLCO and SELECT trials.BMC urology · 2022Article
- One-Day Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Digital Pathology by Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Screening for Prostate Cancer.The Medical clinics of North America · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) recommendations on prostate cancer screening were developed in response to three limitations of previous screening guidelines: insufficient evidence base, failure to link screening with treatment, and lack of risk stratification. The objective of the recommendations is to provide a schema for prostate cancer screening that maximizes the benefits, in terms of reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, and minimizes the harms, in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We recommend the following schema for men choosing to be screened following informed decision-making: starting at age 45, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) without digital rectal examination. If PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL: consider prostate biopsy; if PSA ≥ 1 but < 3 ng/mL: return for PSA testing every 2-4 years; if PSA < 1 ng/mL: return for PSA testing at 6-10 years. PSA testing should end at age 60 for men with PSA ≤ 1 ng/ mL; at 70, unless a man is very healthy and has a higher than average PSA; at 75 for all men. The decision to biopsy a man with a PSA > 3 ng/mL should be based on a variety of factors including repeat blood draw for confirmatory testing of the PSA level, digital rectal examination results, and workup for benign disease. Additional reflex tests in blood such as a free-to-total PSA ratio, the Prostate Health Index, or 4Kscore, or urinary testing of PCA3, can also be informative in some patients. The best evidence suggests that more restricted indication for prostate biopsy and a more focused approach to pursue screening in men at highest risk of lethal cancer would retain most of the mortality benefits of aggressive screening schema, while importantly reducing harms from overdetection and overtreatment.
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.