ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2023
Trends of stratified prostate cancer risk in a single Korean province from 2003 to 2021: A multicenter study conducted using regional training hospital data.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carbon footprints in the urologic field: From diagnosis to surgery.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Review
- Association Between Prostate Cancer Detection Rate and Year of Prostate Biopsy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Description of FDG and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT Findings in Korean Patients With Advanced Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Analysis of trend in the role of national and regional hubs in prostatectomy after prostate cancer diagnosis in the past 5 years: A nationwide population-based study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2024Article
- Prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: An old but never-ending story.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify changes in prostate cancer (PCa) risk-stratification during the last two decades in Korea, where the social perception of PCa was limited due to a relatively low incidence but has recently been triggered by the rapidly increasing incidence of benign prostate hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective data of patients who had received a diagnosis of PCa in a single Korean province (Daegu-Gyeongsangbuk) at all seven training hospitals in the years 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, and 2021 were subjected to analysis. Changes in PCa risk-stratification were investigated with respect to serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score (GS), and clinical stage.
resultsOf the 3,393 study subjects that received a diagnosis of PCa, 64.1% had high-risk disease, 23.0% intermediate, and 12.9% low-risk disease. The proportion diagnosed with high-risk disease was 54.8% in 2003, 30.6% in 2019, but then increased to 35.1% in 2021. The proportion of patients with high PSA (>20 ng/mL) steadily decreased from 59.4% in 2003 to 29.6% in 2021, whereas the proportion with a high GS (>8) increased from 32.8% in 2011 to 34.0% in 2021, and the proportion with advanced stage disease (over cT2c) increased from 26.5% in 2011 to 37.1% in 2021.
conclusionsIn this retrospective study, conducted in a single Korean province, high-risk PCa accounted for the largest proportion of newly registered Korean PCa patients during the last two decades and increased in the early 2020s. This outcome supports the adoption of nationwide PSA screening, regardless of current Western guidelines.
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.