ArticleThe Journal of urology2023
Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sociodemographic disparities in prostate cancer imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- MRI and active surveillance: thoughts from across the pond.European radiology · 2025Review
- Multi-level Factors to Build Confidence and Support in Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring TGF-β signaling in benign prostatic hyperplasia: from cellular senescence to fibrosis and therapeutic implications.Biogerontology · 2025Review
- '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
- A vision for closing the evidence-practice gap in the management of low-grade prostate cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIt is unknown whether compliance with recommended monitoring tests during observation of localized prostate cancer has changed over time. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2016 who were initially managed with observation for a minimum of 12 months. The primary objective was to examine rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and prostate MRI. We used multivariable mixed effects Poisson regression to determine whether rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy increased over time. In addition, we identified clinical, sociodemographic, and provider factors associated with the frequency of monitoring tests during observation.
resultsWe identified 10,639 patients diagnosed at a median age of 73 (IQR 69-77) years. The median follow-up time was 4.3 (IQR 2.7-6.6) years after diagnosis. Among patients managed without treatment for 5 years, 98% received at ≥1 PSA test, 48.0% ≥1 additional prostate biopsy, and 31.0% ≥1 prostate MRI. Among patients managed with observation for ≥12 months, mixed effects Poisson regression revealed that rates of PSA testing and biopsy increased over time (per calendar year: RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03 and RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11, respectively). Clinical and sociodemographic factors including age, clinical risk, race/ethnicity, census tract poverty, and region were associated with rates of biopsy and PSA testing.
conclusionsUse of recommended monitoring tests including repeat prostate biopsy remains low among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
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.