Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33912509›Full record

ArticleProstate international2021

Impact of the evolving United States Preventative Services Task Force policy statements on incidence and distribution of prostate cancer over 15 years in a statewide cancer registry.

Seong H Jeong, Jay D Raman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Detection of recurrence sites usingProstate international · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Seong H JeongThe Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Jay D RamanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline on Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening evolved both in 2008 (Grade I for men < 75 years and Grade D for men > 75 years) and in 2012 (Grade D for all ages). MATERIALS AND

methodsA statewide cancer registry operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health was accessed to analyze over a 15-year period prostate cancer rates across different categories including age, stage, and geographic distribution.

resultsLocal prostate cancer rates decreased significantly when comparing before and after USPSTF's guideline changes: 2002-2008 vs. 2009-2012 vs. 2013-2016 (p < 0.005). Conversely, the distant cancer rates increased significantly in Caucasian men (but not in African American men) (p = 0.0078). In age group analysis, distant cancer rates increased significantly in all age ranges, most notably in younger men (50-59 years). No observed difference in the trend of distant cancer rates when considering rural versus urban counties.

conclusionsIncident prostate cancer cases diagnosed in Pennsylvania have decreased over the past 15 years with a recent rise in distant carcinomas potentially attributable to the USPSTF recommendations against PSA-based screening. Although the USPSTF revised their PSA-based prostate cancer screening guideline in 2018 (Grade C for men 55-69 years and Grade D for men > 70 years), the implications of the aforementioned observations on mortality outcomes merit further follow-up.

Indexed as

Prostate CancerScreeningState Cancer RegistryUSPSTF

Identifiers

PMID33912509
PMCPMC8053697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.