ReviewAsian journal of urology2025
Prostate cancer screening.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To examine the current status and future perspectives of prostate cancer (PCa) screening. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of randomized controlled trials focused on PCa screening and treatment. This review specifically focused on population-based trials enrolling men at average risk of PCa. Results: Prostate-specific antigen has been the cornerstone of PCa screening since its clinical introduction in the late 1980s. Four contemporary high-quality randomized controlled trials assessed the efficacy of a prostate-specific antigen-based screening program on PCa mortality. We address conflicting results and differences among these trials. In recent years, MRI has gained significance, particularly in the targeted diagnostic pathway of PCa. Four randomized controlled trials and one cohort study have evaluated its use in PCa screening programs. Additionally, three pivotal trials have investigated the impact of radical PCa treatment on mortality, indirectly evaluating the utility of screening protocols. Current positions of major society guidelines are also addressed. Risk-adapted strategies, considering combined factors, are envisioned as the future towards precision medicine. Conclusion: PCa screening has demonstrated a benefit in terms of reducing PCa mortality after 10 years of follow-up. Nevertheless, its application is not without risks, so a shared decision-making process must be ensured between the patient and the clinician. Emerging tools such as MRI, genetic panels, and new biomarkers show promising opportunities to reduce these harms and the overdiagnosis of low-risk cancers. An individualized approach for each patient, based on detected risks and clinical parameters, helps guide different clinical pathways.
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.