ArticleCancer medicine2019
Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Profiling of Circulating Tumor Cells and MYC/PTEN Alterations in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy in Amazon Population.Molecular carcinogenesis · 2026Article
- Bayesian Spatio-Temporal Multilevel Modelling of Patient-Reported Quality of Life following Prostate Cancer Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A scoring diagnostic system based on biparametric ultrasound features for prostate cancer risk assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A Refinement of Clinical Tumor Marker Monitoring: Why Not Use an Inverse Value of Doubling Time?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021Article
- Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is used for prostate cancer detection and posttreatment surveillance, thresholds in these settings differ. The screening cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL may be inappropriately used during postsurgery surveillance, where 0.2 ng/mL is typically used, creating missed opportunities for effective salvage radiation treatment. We performed a study to determine whether guideline concordance with annual postoperative PSA surveillance increases when PSA values exceed 4 ng/mL, which represents a screening threshold that is not relevant after surgery.
methodsWe used US Veterans Health Administration data to perform a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008 who underwent radical prostatectomy. We used logistic regression to examine the association between postoperative PSA levels and receipt of an annual PSA test.
resultsAmong 10 400 men and 38 901 person-years of follow-up, annual guideline concordance decreased from 95% in year 1 to 79% in year 7. After adjustment, guideline concordance was lower for the youngest and oldest men, Black, and unmarried men. Guideline concordance significantly increased as PSA exceeded 4 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio 2.20 PSA > 4-6 ng/mL vs PSA > 1-4 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval 1.20-4.03; P = .01).
conclusionsGuideline concordance with prostate cancer surveillance increased when PSA values exceeded 4 ng/mL, suggesting a screening threshold not relevant after prostate cancer surgery, where 0.2 ng/mL is considered treatment failure, is impacting cancer surveillance quality. Clarification of PSA thresholds for early detection vs cancer surveillance, as well as emphasizing adherence for younger and Black men, appears warranted.
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.