Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41467195›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2025

Prostate cancer screening.

Rodrigo España Navarro, Daniel Antonio González-Padilla, José Daniel Subiela, Cora Pérez-Serrano, David Olmos, Sigrid V Carlsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rodrigo España NavarroDepartment of Urology, Regional University Hospital, Málaga University, Málaga, Andalucía, Spain.
Daniel Antonio González-PadillaDepartment of Urology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.
José Daniel SubielaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Cora Pérez-SerranoDepartment of Urology, Regional University Hospital, Málaga University, Málaga, Andalucía, Spain.
David OlmosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.
Sigrid V CarlssonDepartment of Surgery (Urology Service) and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

Early detectionProstate cancerProstate-specific antigenRandomized controlled trialScreening

Identifiers

PMID41467195
PMCPMC12744698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.