ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Preliminary effects of risk-adapted PSA screening for prostate cancer after integrating PRS-specific and age-specific variation.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) varies across different ages and genetic risks, it's unclear about the effects of genetic-specific and age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa. Methods: Weighed and unweighted polygenic risk scores (PRS) were constructed to classify the participants from the PLCO trial into low- or high-PRS groups. The age-specific and PRS-specific cut-off values of PSA for PCa screening were determined with time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curves and area-under-curves (tdAUCs). Improved screening strategies integrating PRS-specific and age-specific cut-off values of PSA were compared to traditional PSA screening on accuracy, detection rates of high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7), and false positive rate. Results: Weighted PRS with 80 SNPs significantly associated with PCa was determined as the optimal PRS, with an AUC of 0.631. After stratifying by PRS, the tdAUCs of PSA with a 10-year risk of PCa were 0.818 and 0.816 for low- and high-PRS groups, whereas the cut-off values were 1.42 and 1.62 ng/mL, respectively. After further stratifying by age, the age-specific cut-off values of PSA were relatively lower for low PRS (1.42, 1.65, 1.60, and 2.24 ng/mL for aged <60, 60-64, 65-69, and ≥70 years) than high PRS (1.48, 1.47, 1.89, and 2.72 ng/mL). Further analyses showed an obvious interaction of positive PSA and high PRS on PCa incidence and mortality. Very small difference in PCa risk were observed among subgroups with PSA (-) across different age and PRS, and PCa incidence and mortality with PSA (+) significantly increased as age and PRS, with highest risk for high-PRS/PSA (+) in participants aged ≥70 years [HRs (95%CI): 16.00 (12.62-20.29) and 19.48 (9.26-40.96)]. The recommended screening strategy reduced 12.8% of missed PCa, ensured high specificity, but not caused excessive false positives than traditional PSA screening. Conclusion: Risk-adapted screening integrating PRS-specific and age-specific cut-off values of PSA would be more effective than traditional PSA screening.
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.