ArticleBMC cancer2025
Rural variations in primary care prostate cancer diagnosis and survival: a cohort study using linked Australian primary care electronic medical record data.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Clinicopathological Profile of Prostate Cancer Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcross the state of Victoria, Australia around one-third of residents live in rural areas. There are persisting disparities and poorer prostate cancer outcomes in rural areas compared with metropolitan areas. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood tests are commonly used in primary care to investigate patients with suspected prostate cancer. Understanding variations in PSA test use and follow-up of abnormal results between rural and metropolitan areas could identify potential causes of disparities in prostate cancer detection and outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a longitudinal cohort study using Australian primary care data linked to cancer registry data. Male patients aged ≥ 18 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 30 June 2010 and 31 July 2022 were included if they visited primary care in the year pre-diagnosis and had a primary care PSA test. Logistic regression was used to compare demographic and tumour characteristics between patients in rural and metropolitan areas and the occurrence and timing of abnormal PSA results pre-diagnosis. Poisson regression models were used to estimated trends in PSA test use pre-diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to quantify overall and cancer-specific survival rates.
resultsThe study population consisted of 2,470 patients, (52% rural, 48% metropolitan). Rural patients had higher Gleason scores and were almost twice as likely to have significantly elevated (> 20ng/mL) PSA levels at diagnosis. There were prolonged diagnostic intervals (the time between first abnormal PSA test and cancer diagnosis) of 7 months in metropolitan patients and 8 months in rural patients. In both rural and metropolitan areas, two-thirds of patients with a PSA > 3ng/ml did not have guideline concordant care (a repeat PSA test within 3 months).
conclusionsRural Victorians with prostate cancer have higher PSA levels and Gleason scores at diagnosis and experience longer diagnostic intervals compared to metropolitan patients. In both rural and metropolitan areas, abnormal PSA tests are frequently detected several months before prostate cancer diagnosis and there is low guideline concordance regarding repeat tests. Targeted interventions to identify and action abnormal PSA blood tests results in primary care could expedite prostate cancer diagnosis and reduce rural-metropolitan disparities in prostate cancer outcomes.
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.