ReviewJMIR cancer2021
Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators for Healthy Populations: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential Biopsy Patterns Influence Associations between Multivitamin Use and Prostate Cancer Risk in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Trial
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Recent developments in cancer immuno-interception strategies.Trends in molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Glandular Density and Glandular Volume of the Peripheral Zone as Novel Pre-Biopsy Biometric Parameters: A Retrospective Pilot Study.Research and reports in urology · 2026Article
- Predictive clinical characteristics for adverse pathological outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer during biopsy.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Usefulness of urinary biomarker-based risk score and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naïve patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Role of the Testosterone-to-Prostate-Specific Antigen Ratio in Pre-Biopsy Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2024Article
- BioPrev-C - development and validation of a contemporary prostate cancer risk calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Navigating through the Controversies and Emerging Paradigms in Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Bridging the Gap from Classic RCTs to Modern Population-Based Pilot Programs.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Prostate cancer screening: Continued controversies and novel biomarker advancements.Current urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for prostate cancer has long been a debated, complex topic. The use of risk calculators for prostate cancer is recommended for determining patients' individual risk of cancer and the subsequent need for a prostate biopsy. These tools could lead to better discrimination of patients in need of invasive diagnostic procedures and optimized allocation of health care resources.
objectiveThe goal of the research was to systematically review available literature on the performance of current prostate cancer risk calculators in healthy populations by comparing the relative impact of individual items on different cohorts and on the models' overall performance.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of available prostate cancer risk calculators targeted at healthy populations. We included studies published from January 2000 to March 2021 in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or German. Two reviewers independently decided for or against inclusion based on abstracts. A third reviewer intervened in case of disagreements. From the selected titles, we extracted information regarding the purpose of the manuscript, analyzed calculators, population for which it was calibrated, included risk factors, and the model's overall accuracy.
resultsWe included a total of 18 calculators from 53 different manuscripts. The most commonly analyzed ones were the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and European Randomized Study on Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators developed from North American and European cohorts, respectively. Both calculators provided high diagnostic ability of aggressive prostate cancer (AUC as high as 0.798 for PCPT and 0.91 for ERSPC). We found 9 calculators developed from scratch for specific populations that reached a diagnostic ability as high as 0.938. The most commonly included risk factors in the calculators were age, prostate specific antigen levels, and digital rectal examination findings. Additional calculators included race and detailed personal and family history.
conclusionsBoth the PCPR and ERSPC risk calculators have been successfully adapted for cohorts other than the ones they were originally created for with no loss of diagnostic ability. Furthermore, designing calculators from scratch considering each population's sociocultural differences has resulted in risk tools that can be well adapted to be valid in more patients. The best risk calculator for prostate cancer will be that which has been calibrated for its intended population and can be easily reproduced and implemented.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021242110; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=242110.
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.