ArticleEuropean urology oncology2026
Comparison of Results from the BARCODE1 Study and Contemporary Prostate Cancer Screening Trials.
Article in European urology oncology, 2026. 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.
- Mechanisms of Progression and Challenges for Intervention in the Natural History of Early Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have generated considerable interest as a means of personalizing prostate cancer (PC) screening by stratifying individuals according to their genetic risk. The single-arm BARCODE1 study recently showed that PRS-based screening detected more PCs than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The absence of a comparator arm limits the interpretability of this finding. We compared outcomes from BARCODE1 with those from two contemporaneous, large-scale screening trials-Göteborg-2 and ProScreen-that used MRI with or without a PC blood marker to risk-stratify men for biopsy. When standardized to 10 000 men tested, BARCODE1 biopsied more men (704 vs 386 and 338), diagnosed more low-grade PCs (126 vs 103 and 41), and detected fewer high-grade PCs (155 vs 178 and 165) versus Göteborg-2 and ProScreen. Combining PRS with PSA or MRI in BARCODE1 reduced the detection of high-grade PCs by 50-75% in comparison to Göteborg-2 and ProScreen. These findings reflect the limited risk discrimination of PRSs and their inability, unlike MRI and blood-based markers, to preferentially detect aggressive disease. PRS-based PC screening underperforms relative to current best practice and, on the basis of BARCODE1 data, should not be adopted in clinical practice.
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.