Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38581198›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2024

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Richard M Martin, Emma L Turner, Grace J Young, Chris Metcalfe, Eleanor I Walsh, J Athene Lane, Jonathan A C Sterne, Sian Noble, Peter Holding, Yoav Ben-Shlomo and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Richard M MartinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Emma L TurnerDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Grace J YoungDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Chris MetcalfeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Eleanor I WalshDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
J Athene LaneDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jonathan A C SterneDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sian NobleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Peter HoldingNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Yoav Ben-ShlomoDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Naomi J WilliamsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mai Ngoc BuiDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter C AlbertsenDivision of Urology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington.
Tyler M SeibertDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla.
Anthony L ZietmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Jon OxleyDepartment of Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jan AdolfssonDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Malcolm D MasonSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
George Davey SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
David E NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Freddie C HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jenny L DonovanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
CAP Trial Group

Funding

Modeling Precision Interventions for Prostate Cancer ControlU01CA253915 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D, TSODIKOV, ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
Cancer Research UK 29019Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_00032/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsAgedEnglandFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingUltrasonographyWalesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID38581198
PMCPMC10999004

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.