Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2020
Changes in Prostate Cancer Presentation Following the 2012 USPSTF Screening Statement: Observational Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice.
Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06009549 (Engagement Trends in Clinical Trials for Metastatic Prostate Cancer - A Journey Into Participation Patterns Among Individuals Affected by the Condition), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Engagement Trends in Clinical Trials for Metastatic Prostate Cancer - A Journey Into Participation Patterns Among Individuals Affected by the Condition
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate Cancer: Community Education and Disparities in Diagnosis and Treatment.The oncologist · 2021Pooled it
- Cancer Screening Clinical Trial: Evidence and Endpoint.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Canadian Prostate Cancer Trends in the Context of PSA Screening Guideline Changes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Medical Mistrust on Prostate Cancer Screening: A mixed method study among African Americans, Caribbean immigrants and African immigrants.Medical research archives · 2024Article
- Review
- PSA Screening: a Kind of Russian Roulette?Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Changes in Prostate Cancer Presentation Following the 2012 USPSTF Screening Statement: Observational Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men of all ages. Following this change, screening declined yet the complete impact on clinical presentation is not well defined in the screen-eligible population.
objectiveTo determine if the rates of PSA screening, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV at presentation in screen-eligible men in Kaiser Permanente Northern California changed following the 2012 USPSTF Prostate Cancer Screening recommendations.
designRetrospective study spanning the years 2010 to 2015, in screen-eligible Kaiser Permanente Northern California members (African American men ages 45-69 and all other men ages 50-69) with no prior history of prostate cancer. Participants All screen-eligible, male members during 2010 (n = 403,931) to 2015 (n = 483,286) without a history of prostate cancer within all Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. MAIN MEASURES: Annual rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, incident prostate cancer detection, and stage IV cancer at presentation were compared between the pre-guideline period, 2010 and 2011, and the post-guideline period, 2014 and 2015, in men under the age of 70. KEY
resultsFollowing the 2012 USPSTF guideline change, screening rates declined 23.4% (95% CI 23.0-23.8%), biopsy rates declined 64.3% (95% CI 62.9-65.6%), and incident prostate cancer detection rates declined 53.5% (95% CI 50.1-56.7%) resulting in 1871 fewer incident cancers detected, and metastatic cancer rates increased 36.9% (95% CI 9.5-71.0%) resulting in 75 more stage IV cancers detected.
conclusionLess screening resulted in a large decrease in cancer detection, some of which may be beneficial as many cancers may be indolent, yet this decrease occurred at the expense of an increase in metastatic cancer rates. For every 25 fewer cancers detected, one metastatic cancer was diagnosed. This information may be valuable in the shared decision-making process around prostate cancer screening.
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.