ArticleBMJ open2019
The impact of different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing intervals on Gleason score at diagnosis and the risk of experiencing false-positive biopsy recommendations: a population-based cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical impact of MRI-based risk calculators for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Guideline of guidelines: a critical appraisal of the evidence for PSA retesting intervals.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Transdermal Minimally Invasive Optical Multiplex Detection of Protein Biomarkers by Nanopillars Array-Embedded Microneedles.ACS nano · 2024Article
- Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the clinical factors influencing locally advanced prostate cancer.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Early prediction of prostate cancer risk in younger men using polygenic risk scores and electronic health records.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Dual contribution of the mTOR pathway and of the metabolism of amino acids in prostate cancer.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2022Review
- The "Bloodless" Blood Test: Intradermal Prick Nanoelectronics for the Blood Extraction-Free Multiplex Detection of Protein Biomarkers.ACS nano · 2022Article
- Review
- Linearity of Age at Cancer Onset Worldwide: 25-Year Population-Based Cancer Registry Study.Cancers · 2021Article
- Using "Age and Total-PSA" as the Main Indicators: The Results of Taizhou Integrated Prostate Screening (No 2).American journal of men's healthArticle
- Impact of IL-23 in prostate cancer.Asian journal of andrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGiven a man's current prostate- specific antigen (PSA) level, age and family history of prostate cancer, what are the benefits (decreased risk of higher Gleason score [GS] cancer at diagnosis) and harms (increased risk of false-positive biopsy recommendation) of waiting 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5-8 years until the next PSA test?
designProspective cohort.
settingAll PSA tested men in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2015.
participantsMen aged 50-74 years with at least two PSA tests between 2003 and 2015 (n=174 636).
main outcome measuresLog-binomial regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of GS ≥7 and GS 6 versus benign outcome at prostate biopsy and 12-year cumulative probability of experiencing a false-positive biopsy by testing interval, age, PSA level and first-degree family history.
resultsMen with PSA ≤1 ng/mL had low risk of GS ≥7 prostate cancer irrespective of testing interval; <3% had a PSA >3 at the next testing occasion, and of the 663 men biopsied after the next PSA test only 32 (5%) had GS ≥7 cancer. Men with PSA >1 ng/mL had increased risk of being diagnosed with GS ≥7 prostate cancer when screened with longer than annual intervals (RRs ranged from 1.4 to 3.2 depending on PSA level and testing interval). The results were consistent across age groups and family history status. This benefit needs to be balanced against the increased risk for false-positive biopsy recommendation with shorter testing intervals (twofold for annual vs biennial and threefold for annual vs triennial).
conclusionsMen aged 50-74 years with PSA ≤1 ng/mL can wait 3-4 years before having a new PSA test. For men with PSA >1 ng/mL, we observed an increased risk of being diagnosed with GS ≥7 prostate cancer with longer than annual testing intervals. This benefit needs to be balanced against the markedly increased risks for false-positive biopsy recommendations with shorter testing intervals recommendations.
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.