Trial reportInternational journal of cancer2026
Comparing the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening protocols: European Association of Urology- and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-based strategies.
Trial report in International journal of cancer, 2026. 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
Prostate cancer (PC) screening reduces PC mortality but also causes burden such as overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. The European Association of Urology (EAU) recently proposed a risk-adapted screening protocol incorporating prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based intervals, a risk calculator (RC), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), though its long-term outcomes remain unquantified. We constructed the MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis-PSA model by adapting the existing MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis-PROstate microsimulation framework to simulate individual PSA trajectories. The model parameters were calibrated to outcomes of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Using this model, we simulated five screening protocols for men aged 55-69: fixed 4-year intervals between PSA tests and a biopsy when PSA ≥3.0 ng/mL (ERSPC protocol); PSA-based intervals; MRI prior to biopsy; the RC and MRI prior to biopsy; and the full EAU protocol (PSA-based intervals, RC, and MRI). Outcomes included PC mortality, overdiagnoses, the number of PSA tests, biopsies, and MRIs. Compared to the ERSPC protocol, PSA-based intervals reduced PSA tests by 21%. The MRI-only protocol decreased overdiagnosis by 6% but also required many MRIs. Incorporating the RC further reduced overdiagnosis to 10% and required 36% fewer MRIs than the MRI-only protocol. The EAU combines the best of all these approaches while maintaining equal PC mortality (200 deaths per 10,000 men). The EAU protocol optimizes long-term screening efficiency, significantly reducing biopsies and overdiagnosis with minimal mortality trade-offs. MRI and RC integration enhance resource allocation.
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.