Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35974245›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2022

Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future.

Hendrik Van Poppel, Tit Albreht, Partha Basu, Renée Hogenhout, Sarah Collen, Monique Roobol

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
28.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Hendrik Van PoppelDepartment of Urology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. hendrik.vanpoppel@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7458-8578
Tit AlbrehtNational Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1812-4381
Partha BasuInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0124-4050
Renée HogenhoutErasmus University Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8263-9507
Sarah CollenEuropean Association of Urology, Arnhem, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8407-4511
Monique RoobolErasmus University Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6967-1708
Erasmus MC · NLCentre international de recherche sur le cancer · FREuropean Association of Urology · NLKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the pre-PSA-detection era, a large proportion of men were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and died of the disease; after the introduction of the serum PSA test, randomized controlled prostate cancer screening trials in the USA and Europe were conducted to assess the effect of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality. Contradictory outcomes of the trials and the accompanying overdiagnosis resulted in recommendations against prostate cancer screening by organizations such as the United States Preventive Services Task Force. These recommendations were followed by a decline in PSA testing and a rise in late-stage diagnosis and prostate cancer mortality. Re-evaluation of the randomized trials, which accounted for contamination, showed that PSA-based screening does indeed reduce prostate cancer mortality; however, the debate about whether to screen or not to screen continues because of the considerable overdiagnosis that occurs using PSA-based screening. Meanwhile, awareness among the population of prostate cancer as a potentially lethal disease stimulates opportunistic screening practices that further increase overdiagnosis without the benefit of mortality reduction. However, in the past decade, new screening tools have been developed that make the classic PSA-only-based screening an outdated strategy. With improved use of PSA, in combination with age, prostate volume and with the application of prostate cancer risk calculators, a risk-adapted strategy enables improved stratification of men with prostate cancer and avoidance of unnecessary diagnostic procedures. This combination used with advanced detection techniques (such as MRI and targeted biopsy), can reduce overdiagnosis. Moreover, new biomarkers are becoming available and will enable further improvements in risk stratification.

Indexed as

Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEuropeHumansMaleMass ScreeningProstateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35974245
OpenAlexW4291993600

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.