Trial reportJAMA2018
Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 204 papers, 17 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
204 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 405 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline of guidelines: a critical appraisal of the evidence for PSA retesting intervals.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Noncancer-Related Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Multi-cancer early detection tests for general population screening: a systematic literature review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types.Journal of medical screening · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.European urology · 2024Pooled it
- Shared medical decision in prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic literature review of current evidence.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Ethnic differences in prostate-specific antigen levels in men without prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Application and optimization of prostate-specific antigen screening strategy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- LncRNA SNHG15: A new budding star in human cancers.Cell proliferation · 2020Pooled it
- General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a clinical practice guideline.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Guideline
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Web-Based Versus Usual Care and Other Formats of Decision Aids to Support Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating the Impact of Age on Prostate Cancer Overdiagnosis Using Long-Term Follow-Up From the CAP Randomised Trial.International journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- [Feasibility and clinical value of a prostate cancer screening model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen in a Chinese population].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Trial
- Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
27 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016. Intervention: An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic. Results: Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance: Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.
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.