ArticleBJU international2023
Standardized prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates following initial non-malignant biopsy result.
Article in BJU international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical utility of prostate MRI before biopsy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Transperineal cognitive fusion MRI-targeted biopsy shows higher detection rates than systematic biopsy in prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Prostate-specific antigen screening at low thresholds of men with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- Modifiable risk factors for subsequent lethal prostate cancer among men with an initially negative prostate biopsy.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Danish Prostate Registry (DanProst) - an Updated Version of the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry, Methodology, and Early Results.Journal of medical systems · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the incidence of subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis and death following an initial non-malignant systematic transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy with that in an age- and calendar-year matched population over a 20-year period. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThis population-based analysis compared a cohort of all men with initial non-malignant TRUS biopsy in Denmark between 1995 and 2016 (N = 37 231) with the Danish population matched by age and calendar year, obtained from the NORDCAN 9.1 database. Age- and calendar year-corrected standardized prostate cancer incidence (SIR) and prostate cancer-specific mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated and heterogeneity among age groups was assessed with the Cochran's Q test.
resultsThe median time to censoring was 11 years, and 4434 men were followed for more than 15 years. The corrected SIR was 5.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.1-5.4) and the corrected SMR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81). Estimates differed among age groups (P < 0.001 for both), with a higher SIR and SMR among younger men.
conclusionMen with non-malignant TRUS biopsy have a much higher incidence of prostate cancer but a risk of prostate cancer death below the population average. This underlines that the oncological risk of cancers missed in the initial TRUS biopsy is low. Accordingly, attempts to increase the sensitivity of initial biopsy are unjustified. Moreover, current follow-up after non-malignant biopsy is likely to be overaggressive, particularly in men over the age of 60 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.