ReviewAdvances in laboratory medicine2026
The evolving role of PSA in prostate cancer screening: revisiting the evidence in the era of personalized medicine.
Review in Advances in laboratory medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a widely available and analytically robust biomarker, but its role in prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains controversial due to concerns regarding limited specificity, overdiagnosis of indolent tumors, and the downstream risk of overtreatment. This review provides a critical analysis of the main randomized trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that have shaped current recommendations against PSA-based screening, highlighting the substantial methodological heterogeneity that complicates interpretation of aggregated outcomes. Key limitations identified across studies include variability in PSA thresholds and screening intensity, insufficient follow-up in some cases to detect long-term mortality benefits, non-comparability of PSA assays, and extensive contamination of control groups - particularly in the PLCO trial - which undermines estimates of screening efficacy. Recent updates from the ERSPC and CAP trials show that mortality reductions associated with screening increase with longer follow-up, supporting the need to reassess earlier conclusions. Parallel to the evolving evidence base, European initiatives such as the PRAISE-U consortium and several regional pilot programs following the European Council's recommendations are implementing risk-adapted pathways that combine baseline PSA stratification with multiparametric MRI triage and selective biopsy. These programs aim to minimize overdiagnosis while improving detection of clinically significant PCa and generating real-world evidence for organized screening. Additionally, the variability among PSA assays underscores the need for greater harmonization and standardized reporting. Overall, emerging data suggest that intelligently targeted, risk-stratified PSA screening may offer a more balanced approach than the traditional dichotomy of screening vs. no screening.
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.