Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28910820›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017

Prospective investigation of risk factors for prostate cancer in the UK Biobank cohort study.

Aurora Perez-Cornago, Timothy J Key, Naomi E Allen, Georgina K Fensom, Kathryn E Bradbury, Richard M Martin, Ruth C Travis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 8 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. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Association ofAdvanced biomedical research · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Aurora Perez-CornagoCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Timothy J KeyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Naomi E AllenClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Georgina K FensomCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Kathryn E BradburyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Richard M MartinSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS6 7QD, UK.
Ruth C TravisCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16491Cancer Research UK 19169Cancer Research UK 19170Medical Research Council MC_QA137853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer is the most common cancer in British men but its aetiology is not well understood. We aimed to identify risk factors for prostate cancer in British males.

methodsWe studied 219 335 men from the UK Biobank study who were free from cancer at baseline. Exposure data were collected at recruitment. Prostate cancer risk by the different exposures was estimated using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

resultsIn all, 4575 incident cases of prostate cancer occurred during 5.6 years of follow-up. Prostate cancer risk was positively associated with the following: black ethnicity (hazard ratio black vs white=2.61, 95% confidence interval=2.10-3.24); having ever had a prostate-specific antigen test (1.31, 1.23-1.40); being diagnosed with an enlarged prostate (1.54, 1.38-1.71); and having a family history of prostate cancer (1.94, 1.77-2.13). Conversely, Asian ethnicity (Asian vs white hazard ratio=0.62, 0.47-0.83), excess adiposity (body mass index (⩾35 vs <25 kg m

conclusionsIn this new large British prospective study, we identified associations with already-established, putative and possible novel risk factors for being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Future research will examine associations by tumour characteristics.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleProportional Hazards ModelsProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28910820
PMCPMC5680461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.