Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29509864›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2018

Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Richard M Martin, Jenny L Donovan, Emma L Turner, Chris Metcalfe, Grace J Young, Eleanor I Walsh, J Athene Lane, Sian Noble, Steven E Oliver, Simon Evans and 17 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
204citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
38.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

204 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 405 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Richard M MartinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Jenny L DonovanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Emma L TurnerDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Chris MetcalfeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Grace J YoungDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Eleanor I WalshDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
J Athene LaneDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Sian NobleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Steven E OliverDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York and Hull York Medical School, York, England.
Simon EvansUrology Department, Royal United Hospital, Bath, England.
Jonathan A C SterneDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Peter HoldingNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Yoav Ben-ShlomoDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Peter BrindleBristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, Bristol, England.
Naomi J WilliamsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Elizabeth M HillDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Siaw Yein NgDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Jessica TooleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Marta K TazewellDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Laura J HughesDepartment of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Charlotte F DaviesDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Joanna C ThornDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Elizabeth DownDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
George Davey SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
David E NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Freddie C HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
CAP Trial Group
University of Bristol · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBBristol Clinical Commissioning Group · GBMedical Research Council · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBRoyal United Hospital · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194Cancer Research UK 15064Cancer Research UK 24432Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAgedAge DistributionFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSocial ClassUnited KingdomProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID29509864
PMCPMC5885905
OpenAlexW2791546899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.