ArticleJAMA network open2024
Access to Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Mortality Among Men With Prostate Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. 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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and pilot testing of a prostate cancer polygenic risk report.BMC medical genomics · 2026Trial
- Reduced incidence of postoperative inguinal hernia with single-port versus multiport platforms in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Associations of fine particulate matter pollution components with overall, prostate cancer, and cardiovascular disease mortality in men with prostate cancer: A cohort study.Environmental research · 2026Article
- Genomic risk model to implement precision prostate cancer screening in clinical care: the ProGRESS study.Nature cancer · 2026Article
- Temporal trends and regional disparities in prostate cancer mortality in the United States, 1999-2023: an analysis of the CDC WONDER database.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Data Errors in Abstract and Main Results.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Travel Time to Treating Facility and Mortality in Men With Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- From bench to bedside: the evolution and future of prostate-specific antigen testing.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- The global, regional, and national prostate cancer burden and trends from 1990 to 2021, results from the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Multidimensional Healthcare Access Barriers to Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: A Nation-Wide Panel Study in the United States From 2006 to 2020.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Prostate cancer statistics, 2025.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
- Leveraging Machine Learning Models to Explore Disparities in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survival.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is controversial but may be associated with benefit for certain high-risk groups. Objectives: To evaluate associations of county-level PSA screening prevalence with prostate cancer outcomes, as well as variation by sociodemographic and clinical factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from cancer registries based in 8 US states on Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White men aged 40 to 99 years who received a diagnosis of prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. Participants were followed up until death or censored after 10 years or December 31, 2018, whichever end point came first. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Exposure: County-level PSA screening prevalence was estimated using the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data from 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 and weighted by population characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards regression, and competing risks models were fit to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) for associations of county-level PSA screening prevalence at diagnosis with advanced stage (regional or distant), as well as all-cause and prostate cancer-specific survival. Results: Of 814 987 men with prostate cancer, the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (9.8) years, 7.8% were Hispanic, 12.2% were non-Hispanic Black, and 80.0% were non-Hispanic White; 17.0% had advanced disease. There were 247 570 deaths over 5 716 703 person-years of follow-up. Men in the highest compared with lowest quintile of county-level PSA screening prevalence at diagnosis had lower odds of advanced vs localized stage (AOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88), lower all-cause mortality (AHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.87), and lower prostate cancer-specific mortality (AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85). Inverse associations between PSA screening prevalence and advanced cancer were strongest among men of Hispanic ethnicity vs other ethnicities (AOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87), older vs younger men (aged ≥70 years: AOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79), and those in the Northeast vs other US Census regions (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.84). Inverse associations with all-cause mortality were strongest among men of Hispanic ethnicity vs other ethnicities (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85), younger vs older men (AHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), those with advanced vs localized disease (AHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.82), and those in the West vs other US Census regions (AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90). Conclusions and Relevance: This population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer suggests that higher county-level prevalence of PSA screening was associated with lower odds of advanced disease, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Associations varied by age, race and ethnicity, and US Census region.
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.