SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Association between BK polyomavirus and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed malignancy in men worldwide, but the role of viral infection, particularly BK polyomavirus (BKPyV), remains controversial. To clarify this association, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies published between January 1, 2000, and May 1, 2025. The pooled prevalence of BKPyV in PCa tissues was 22% (95% CI: 12-34%; I²= 96.27%), indicating that the inter-study heterogeneity is high. Eleven case-control studies showed that BKPyV infection was associated with increased odds of PCa (pooled OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 2.15-4.30; I²= 31.7%). Subgroup analyses by specimen type, detection method, molecular target, study location, and Gleason score demonstrated a consistent positive association, although residual heterogeneity persisted. Because all included studies relied on PCR-based detection, the identified viral DNA cannot distinguish episomal, integrated, defective, or transcriptionally active states, nor establish temporal order or causality. Overall, BKPyV may represent a plausible cofactor or context-dependent marker in PCa, and the observed pattern is compatible with several hypotheses, including hit-and-run, microenvironment driven phenomenon, and a mixed phenomenon. Standardized molecular assays and more complete clinicopathological annotation are needed in future studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251179044, identifier CRD420251179044.
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.