ReviewInternational journal of cancer2020
Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.
Review in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Silencing of ELFN1-AS1 induces prostate cancer cell apoptosis and autophagy by regulating miR-28-5p/BCAM axis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Low follow-up rate after positive prostate cancer screening in southern China: a community-based cross-sectional survey with a prospective component.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Age limit for familial prostate cancer screening.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- The Patient Journey from Randomization to Detection of Prostate Cancer and Death: Results from ERSPC Rotterdam.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Effects of dynamic contrast enhancement on transition zone prostate cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1.Radiology and oncology · 2023Article
- Physical Inactivity, Metabolic Syndrome and Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Development of a Predicting Nomogram.Metabolites · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Procedures in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: an Interventional Radiologist's Perspective.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- Hospital-based prostate cancer screening in vietnamese men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a classification and regression tree model.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Does Adding Standard Systematic Biopsy to Targeted Prostate Biopsy in PI-RADS 3 to 5 Lesions Enhance the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer? Should All Patients with PI-RADS 3 Undergo Targeted Biopsy?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Epidemiology and genomics of prostate cancer in Asian men.Nature reviews. Urology · 2021Review
- Analysis of the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters in the detection of prostate cancer in the first systematic biopsy combined with targeted cognitive biopsy.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Equivocal PI-RADS Three Lesions on Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Risk Stratification Strategies to Avoid MRI-Targeted Biopsies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.International journal of cancer · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review discusses evidence for population-based screening with contemporary screening tools. In Europe, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to a relative reduction of prostate cancer (PCa) mortality, but also to a substantial amount of overdiagnosis and unnecessarily biopsies. Risk stratification based on a single variable (a clinical variable or based on the presence of a lesion on prostate imaging) or based on multivariable approaches can aid in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis by selecting men who can benefit from further clinical assessment. Multivariable approaches include clinical variables, and biomarkers, often combined in risk calculators or nomograms. These risk calculators can also incorporate the result of MRI imaging. In general, as compared to a purely PSA based approach, the combination of relevant prebiopsy information results in superior selection of men at higher risk of harboring clinically significant prostate cancer. Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the superiority of these multivariable risk-based approaches since head-to-head comparisons are virtually lacking. Recently initiated large population-based screening studies in Finland, Germany and Sweden, incorporating various multivariable risk stratification approaches will hopefully give more insight in whether the harm-benefit ratio can be improved, that is, maintain (or improving) the ability to reduce metastatic disease and prostate cancer mortality while reducing harm caused by unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis including related overtreatment.
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.