Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28965781›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2018

Trends in Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates and Prevalence of Prostate Specific Antigen Screening by Socioeconomic Status and Regions in the United States, 2004 to 2013.

Keisha A Houston, Jessica King, Jun Li, Ahmedin Jemal

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Keisha A HoustonDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society (AJ), Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: kahouston@cdc.gov.
Jessica KingDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society (AJ), Atlanta, Georgia.
Jun LiDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society (AJ), Atlanta, Georgia.
Ahmedin JemalDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society (AJ), Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo our knowledge it is unknown whether decreases in the prevalence of prostate specific antigen screening and prostate cancer incidence rates following the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) recommendations against routine prostate specific antigen screening are similar across socioeconomic groups and United States census regions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed incidence rates and prostate specific antigen screening prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, disease stage, United States region and area level socioeconomic status. Annual percent changes were examined for changes in rates with time. The predicted marginal probability and 95% CIs were calculated to estimate changes in prostate specific antigen screening.

resultsIncidence rates in men 50 years old or older decreased in all race/ethnic, regional and socioeconomic status groups. From 2007 to 2013 the overall incidence rates for localized cancer significantly decreased 7.5% per year (95% CI -10.5--4.4) at ages 50 to 74 years and 11.1% per year (95% CI -14.1--8.1) at ages 75 years or greater. In contrast, the incidence of distant stage cancer significantly increased 1.4% per year (95% CI 0.3-2.5) from 2008 to 2013 at ages 50 to 74 years but stabilized from 2011 to 2013 at ages 75 years or greater at 5.1% per year (95% CI -3.4-14.4). Distant stage disease rates increased with increasing poverty level at ages 50 to 74 years but not at 75 years or greater.

conclusionsThe prostate cancer incidence of early stage disease decreased in men 50 years old or older while the rate of distant stage disease slightly increased in men 50 to 74 years old following USPSTF recommendations against routine prostate specific antigen screening. Further studies with additional years of data are needed to substantiate our findings and monitor the effects of the late stage disease increase on prostate cancer mortality rates.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerEthnicityNeoplasm StagingSEER ProgramAgedAge FactorsBiomarkers, TumorFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityPrevalenceProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific Antigenmass screeningmortalityprostate-specific antigenprostatic neoplasmssocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID28965781
PMCPMC11181155

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.