ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Projected outcomes of reduced-biopsy management of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications for relabeling.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Proposed Introduction of a Prostate Cancer Screening Program in Germany: Procedure, Necessary Studies before Implementation, Benefits, and Risks.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplications of relabeling Grade Group 1 prostate cancer as noncancer will depend on the recommended active surveillance strategy. Whether relabeling should prompt deintensifying, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based active monitoring approaches is unclear. We investigated outcomes of biopsy-based active surveillance strategies vs PSA-based active monitoring for Grade Group 1 diagnoses under different patient adherence rates.
methodsWe analyzed longitudinal PSA levels and time to Grade Group 2 or higher reclassification among 850 patients with a diagnosis of Grade Group 1 disease from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (2008-2013). We then simulated 20 000 patients over 12 years, comparing Grade Group 2 or higher detection under biennial biopsy against 3 PSA-based strategies: (1) PSA (biopsy for PSA change ≥20% per year), (2) PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging for PSA change ≥20% per year and biopsy for Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System ≥3), and (3) predicted risk (biopsy for predicted upgrading risk ≥10%).
resultsUnder biennial biopsies and 20% dropout to active treatment, 17% of patients had a 2-year or longer delay in Grade Group 2 or higher detection. The PSA strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 39% but delayed detection in 32% of patients. The PSA plus magnetic resonance imaging strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 52%, with a 34% delay. The predicted risk strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 31%, with only an 8% delay. These findings are robust to biopsy sensitivity and confirmatory biopsy.
conclusionsProstate-specific antigen-based active monitoring could substantially reduce biopsy frequency; however, a precision strategy based on an individual upgrading risk is most likely to minimize delays in detection of disease progression. This strategy may be preferred if active surveillance is deintensified under relabeling, provided patient adherence remains unaffected.
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.