ArticleJAMA network open2022
Association of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation Against Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening With Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving paradigms in prostate cancer screening: a decade of bibliometric insights and technological advancements.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Rural-urban disparities in prostate-specific antigen testing and shared decision-making in the US.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Patterns and Metastatic Prostate Cancer in US Veterans.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Screening policy changes and prostate cancer epidemiology: 20-year trends in diagnosis, treatment, incidence, and mortality.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- National trends in bone-metastatic prostate cancer mortality in the United States, 1999-2024: a multiple-cause-of-death analysis with projections to 2040.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Regional, demographic and temporal trends in anemia and malignant cancer-related mortality in U.S. older adults: a nationwide CDC WONDER analysis (1999-2020).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the impact of a community-based prostate cancer screening program.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Article
- Temporal trends and regional disparities in prostate cancer mortality in the United States, 1999-2023: an analysis of the CDC WONDER database.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Canadian Prostate Cancer Trends in the Context of PSA Screening Guideline Changes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Addressing barriers to care for African American men facing prostate cancer: a scoping review of navigation programs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Is it time for Canada to revisit its approach to prostate cancer screening?Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Review
- Understanding the hospital safety net Hospital resource limitations impact prostate cancer treatment beyond socioeconomic disparities.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Optimizing Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Work-Up Through Micro-Ultrasound: Minimizing Unnecessary Procedures and Reducing Overdiagnoses.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Racial disparities in prostate cancer in the UK and the USA: similarities, differences and steps forwards.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Methylated DNA Markers in Voided Urine for the Identification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Access to Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Mortality Among Men With Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive cytoreductive radical prostatectomy, exploring the safety and feasibility of a single-port or multi-port robotic platform.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Review
- Prostate cancer temporal and regional trends in Brazil.Oncology research · 2024Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for all men has been controversial, with data documenting a shift to a higher stage of disease at diagnosis. The association between the Grade D recommendation and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among contemporary cohorts, however, is unclear. Objective: To evaluate PCSM rates between 1999 and 2019, comparing trends in rates before and after the change in the 2012 USPSTF screening guideline to assess its association with PCSM. Exposure: The 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation against PSA screening for all men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics to collect data on cause of death for all individuals who died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Analysis was performed from January to August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trends in PCSM rates were calculated from 1999 to 2012 and from 2014 to 2019, with a washout year of 2013, using linear regression, with year and binary indicator of pre-2013 and post-2013 status as interaction terms. Trends were further analyzed by age, race and ethnicity, urbanization category, and US Census region. Other measures included diagnosis of localized or metastatic prostate cancer and overall cancer mortality. Results: A total of 618 095 patients died of prostate cancer in the US from 1999 to 2019. Age-adjusted PCSM decreased linearly at a rate of -0.273 per 100 000 population per year from 1999 to 2012 and stalled at a rate of -0.009 per 100 000 per year from 2014 to 2019 (P < .001). This finding was significant among men aged 60 years or older, especially among men aged 60 to 69 years, men aged 80 years or older, and among Black men. Men aged 60 to 64 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.0088 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0014 per 100 000 per year. Men aged 65 to 69 years had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.024 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by an increasing rate of 0.0011 per 100 000 population per year. Men aged 80 years or older had the largest absolute difference between rates before and after 2013 compared with all other age groups, with a difference of 0.06 for men aged 80 to 84 years and 0.07 for men 85 aged years or older. Black men had a decreasing, age-adjusted PCSM rate of -0.700 per 100 000 population per year prior to 2013 followed by a flattened rate of -0.091 per 100 000 population per year. Changes were observed across races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions and were accompanied by increased diagnoses of metastatic disease, which are inconsistent with mortality trends across all malignant neoplasms. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study using comprehensive PCSM data through 2019 demonstrated decreasing PCSM rates that flattened or increased after the 2012 USPSTF Grade D recommendation, suggesting that decreased PSA screening may be a factor associated with this change. This change was seen across ages, races and ethnicities, urbanization categories, and US Census regions. The updated 2018 USPSTF guideline supporting shared decision-making may reverse these trends in the coming years.
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.