Trial reportCancer2026
A trial of risk-adapted prostate cancer screening in a federally supported health center network serving a high-risk population.
Trial report in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04782713 (Smart PSA Screening Study), which is not on this 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.
Smart PSA Screening Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in new ultrasound technologies in targeted prostate biopsy (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough Black men experience earlier onset and higher mortality from prostate cancer (PCa), no studies to date have tested interventions that encourage adoption of risk-adapted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The authors conducted a 15-month trial in clinics serving Chicago communities with high PCa mortality and Black population density. Their objective was to determine the impact of "Smart PSA" guidelines on screening behavior and biopsy outcomes.
methodsThrough presentations, in-clinic reminders, and on-site visits, primary care providers (PCPs) were exposed to basic PSA guidelines recommending starting age, repeat test interval, and stopping age, based on race, family history, and baseline PSA. For the intervention period and a matched control period 3 years earlier, the authors extracted data from clinical databases on all visits by men age 35 and over, at six clinics. The primary end point was change in incidence of a screening PSA linked to a PCP encounter.
resultsA total of 4252 and 4022 patients, similar in age and race, had qualifying encounters during intervention and pre-intervention, respectively. PSA screening following encounters increased from 18.7 to 33.0 per 100 patients (Δ = 14.3; 95% CI, 12.4-16.1) with odds ratio = 2.43 (95% CI, 2.17-2.71), adjusted for pre-specified covariates. Guideline compliance was indicated by a larger increase in screening of younger Black patients, and earlier repeat testing after a borderline PSA. Increased screening of men 70 and older indicated potential noncompliance. Biopsy incidence increased from 0.57 to 0.92 per 100 (Δ = 0.35; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.75), with PCa prevalence at biopsy increasing from 43% to 74%. Total PCa incidence rose 2.7-fold (0.25 to 0.68 per 100, p = .007), with incidence of cancer beyond grade group 1 increasing 3-fold (p = .008).
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that risk-adapted PSA guidelines can be adopted and sustained by PCPs in high-risk settings. Although PCa incidence increased substantially, the predominance of aggressive cancer was unchanged, consistent with the effect of intensified screening in a high-risk population with sparse prior screening for a cancer with long latency. Sustained intensification should eventually cause a new equilibrium, necessitating additional efforts to avoid overdiagnosis.
trial registrationThe trial registration is ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04782713.
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.