Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41160819›Full record

Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2025

European Study of Prostate Cancer Screening - 23-Year Follow-up.

Monique J Roobol, Ivo I de Vos, Marianne Månsson, Rebecka A Godtman, Kirsi M Talala, Elly den Hond, Vera Nelen, Arnauld Villers, Gregoire Poinas, Maciej Kwiatkowski and 14 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2025. 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 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6967-1708
Ivo I de VosDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Marianne MånssonDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rebecka A GodtmanDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Kirsi M TalalaCancer Society of Finland, Helsinki.
Elly den HondProvincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vera NelenProvincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium.
Arnauld VillersDepartment of Urology, Lille, Universite Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.
Gregoire PoinasDepartment of Urology, Clinique Beau Soleil, Montpellier, France.
Maciej KwiatkowskiDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Stephen WylerDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Franz ReckerDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Donella PulitiOncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Giuseppe GoriniOncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1413-5948
Marco ZappaOncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Alvaro PaezDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid.
Marcos LujanDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina, Madrid.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Teuvo TammelaFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Fritz H SchröderDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sebastiaan RemmersDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jonas HugossonDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anssi AuvinenProstate Cancer Research Center, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1125-4818
ERSPC Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 to assess the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate cancer mortality. Because deaths from prostate cancer are expected to rise worldwide owing to increased life expectancy and population growth, a final analysis of the long-term outcomes of prostate cancer screening is essential to understanding the benefits and harms of PSA testing.

methodsWe updated the findings from ERSPC, a multicenter, randomized study conducted across eight European countries with a focus on a predefined core age group of 162,236 men who were 55 to 69 years of age at the time of randomization. Participants were randomly assigned to the screening group and offered repeated PSA testing or to the control group and not invited for screening. The primary outcome was prostate cancer mortality.

resultsAfter a median follow-up of 23 years, prostate cancer mortality was 13% lower in the screening group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.95), and the absolute risk reduction was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.34). The cumulative incidence of prostate cancer was higher in the screening group than in the control group (rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.33). At a median of 23 years of follow-up, one death from prostate cancer was prevented for every 456 men (95% CI, 306 to 943) who were invited for screening, and one death from prostate cancer was averted for every 12 men (95% CI, 8 to 26) in whom prostate cancer was diagnosed, as compared with one death from prostate cancer prevented for every 628 men (95% CI, 419 to 1481) and one death averted for every 18 men (95% CI, 12 to 45) at 16 years of follow-up.

conclusionsLong-term follow-up confirms a sustained reduction in deaths from prostate cancer with PSA testing, alongside an improved harm-benefit ratio. Future screening strategies should adopt risk-based approaches to minimize overdiagnosis while maintaining clinical benefits. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ERSPC ISRCTN registry number, ISRCTN49127736.).

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overEuropeFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProgression-Free SurvivalProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID41160819

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.