ArticleJAMA network open2021
Adoption of New Risk Stratification Technologies Within US Hospital Referral Regions and Association With Prostate Cancer Management.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical Validation of MyProstateScore 2.0-Active Surveillance: A Urinary-Based Clinical RT-PCR Prostate Cancer Assay.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic disparities in prostate cancer imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Disparities in tissue-based biomarker testing among US Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Clinical Validation of MyProstateScore 2.0 Testing Using First-Catch, Non-Digital Rectal Examination Urine.The Journal of urology · 2025Article
- Assessing sociodemographic and regional disparities in Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score uptake.Cancer · 2024Article
- Associations Between Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Genomic Testing, and Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.Urology practice · 2024Article
- 'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Association between urology practice use of multiparametric MRI and genomic testing and treatment of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.Urologic oncology · 2023Article
- MyProstateScore in men considering repeat biopsy: validation of a simple testing approach.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation.The Journal of urology · 2023Article
- Trends in Urethral Suspension With Robotic Prostatectomy Procedures Following Medicare Payment Policy Changes.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Grade Migration of Prostate Cancer in the United States During the Last Decade.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Review
- Cancer statistics, 2025.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The clinical decisions that arise from prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genomic testing in patients with prostate cancer are not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the association between regional uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing and observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of commercial insurance claims for prostate MRI and genomic testing included 65 530 patients 40 to 89 years of age newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2019. Exposures: Patient- and regional-level use of prostate MRI and genomic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Observation vs definitive treatment for prostate cancer. Patient-level analyses examined the association between receipt of testing or residing in a hospital referral region (HRR) that adopted testing and observation. In regional-level analyses, the dependent variable was the change in the proportion of patients observed for prostate cancer at the HRR level between 2 periods: July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and July 1, 2017, to June 20, 2019. The independent study variables included HRR-level changes in the proportion of men undergoing prostate MRI and genomic testing between these periods, and the models were adjusted for contextual factors associated with prostate cancer care and socioeconomic status. Results: This study identified 65 530 patients, including 27 679 in the early period (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [5.9] years) and 37 851 in the late period (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.7] years). Use of prostate MRI increased significantly from 7.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-7.5%) to 16.7% (95% CI, 16.3%-17.1%) from the early to late period. Use of genomic testing increased significantly from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%) to 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3%-13.0%) from the early to late period. Compared with the lowest, the highest HRR quartiles of prostate MRI and genomic testing uptake were associated with an adjusted 4.1% (SE, 1.1%; P < .001) and 2.5% (SE, 1.1%; P = .03) absolute increase in the proportion of patients receiving observation, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing was associated with increased use of initial observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Marked geographic variation supports the need for further patient-level research to optimize the dissemination and outcome of testing.
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.