Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275018›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of epidemiology2021

Marital status and prostate cancer incidence: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies from the PRACTICAL consortium.

Charlotte Salmon, Lixin Song, Kenneth Muir, UKGPCS Collaborators, Nora Pashayan, Alison M Dunning, Jyotsna Batra, APCB BioResource (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource), Suzanne Chambers, Janet L Stanford and 19 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The profile of Black South African men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Free State, South Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2023
    Article
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

29 authors at 17 institutions in 8 countries.

Charlotte SalmonEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Centre Armand-Frappier Santé Biotechnologie, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, University of Quebec, 531 boul. des Prairies, Laval, QC, H7V 1B7, Canada.
Lixin SongLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kenneth MuirDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
UKGPCS Collaborators
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Alison M DunningStrangeways Laboratory, Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK.
Jyotsna BatraAustralian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-Qld, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
APCB BioResource (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource)
Suzanne ChambersFaculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
Janet L StanfordDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, 98109-1024, USA.
Elaine A OstranderNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 50 South Drive, Rm. 5351, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Jong Y ParkDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
Hui-Yi LinSchool of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Olivier CussenotSorbonne Université, GRC n°5, AP-HP, Tenon Hospital, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France.
Géraldine Cancel-TassinSorbonne Université, GRC n°5, AP-HP, Tenon Hospital, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France.
Florence MenegauxExposome and Heredity Team, CESP, UVSQ, INSERM, Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Emilie Cordina-DuvergerExposome and Heredity Team, CESP, UVSQ, INSERM, Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Manolis KogevinasISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain.
Javier LlorcaCIBER Epidemiología Y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029, Madrid, Spain.
Radka KanevaMolecular Medicine Center, Department of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, 2 Zdrave Str., 1431, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Chavdar SlavovDepartment of Urology and Alexandrovska University Hospital, Medical University of Sofia, 1431, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Azad RazackDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jasmine LimDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Manuela Gago-DominguezGenomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Servicio Galego de Saúde, SERGAS, 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Jose Esteban CastelaoGenetic Oncology Unit, CHUVI Hospital, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Galicia Sur (IISGS), 36204, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain.
Zsofia Kote-JaraiThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
Rosalind A EelesThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
on behalf of the PRACTICAL Consortium
Marie-Élise ParentEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Centre Armand-Frappier Santé Biotechnologie, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, University of Quebec, 531 boul. des Prairies, Laval, QC, H7V 1B7, Canada. marie-elise.parent@inrs.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4196-3773
Inserm · FRInstitute of Cancer Research · GBInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique · CAMedical University of Sofia · BGNational Institutes of Health · USRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBTranslational Research Institute · AUUniversidad de Cantabria · ESUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Washington · USManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBMoffitt Cancer Center · USSorbonne Université · FRUniversitat Pompeu Fabra · ESUniversity Hospital Complex Of Vigo · ESUniversity of Malaya · MYUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16563Cancer Research UK 16565Cancer Research UK C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While being in a committed relationship is associated with a better prostate cancer prognosis, little is known about how marital status relates to its incidence. Social support provided by marriage/relationship could promote a healthy lifestyle and an increased healthcare seeking behavior. We investigated the association between marital status and prostate cancer risk using data from the PRACTICAL Consortium. Pooled analyses were conducted combining 12 case-control studies based on histologically-confirmed incident prostate cancers and controls with information on marital status prior to diagnosis/interview. Marital status was categorized as married/partner, separated/divorced, single, or widowed. Tumours with Gleason scores ≥ 8 defined high-grade cancers, and low-grade otherwise. NCI-SEER's summary stages (local, regional, distant) indicated the extent of the cancer. Logistic regression was used to derive odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between marital status and prostate cancer risk, adjusting for potential confounders. Overall, 14,760 cases and 12,019 controls contributed to analyses. Compared to men who were married/with a partner, widowed men had an OR of 1.19 (95% CI 1.03-1.35) of prostate cancer, with little difference between low- and high-grade tumours. Risk estimates among widowers were 1.14 (95% CI 0.97-1.34) for local, 1.53 (95% CI 1.22-1.92) for regional, and 1.56 (95% CI 1.05-2.32) for distant stage tumours. Single men had elevated risks of high-grade cancers. Our findings highlight elevated risks of incident prostate cancer among widowers, more often characterized by tumours that had spread beyond the prostate at the time of diagnosis. Social support interventions and closer medical follow-up in this sub-population are warranted.

Indexed as

Marital StatusAdenocarcinomaAgedDivorceHumansIncidenceMaleMarriageMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillanceProstatic NeoplasmsSingle PersonSocial SupportConsortiumMarital statusMeta-analysisPooled analysisProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID34275018
OpenAlexW3134217353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.