Trial reportBJU international2026
Cancer detection in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).
Trial report in BJU international, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a comprehensive analysis regarding outcomes of repeated screening and detection of low-grade versus high-grade cancer from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analysed men aged 55-69 years at random across the ERSPC trial centres except France. Men in the screening arm were classified as ever-attenders (who attended at least one screening cycle) or non-attenders (who did not attend a specific screening cycle). Cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated by age group and centre across three screening cycles. A secondary analysis incorporated interval prostate cancer (PCa) cases-those diagnosed outside the screening protocol-among both ever-attenders and non-attenders. Incidence data from the control arm were included for comparison.
resultsBased on screen-detected cases, CDRs were consistently higher for low-grade than for intermediate- and high-grade cases across all centres and screening cycles. Trends in CDRs for high-grade cases varied by centre: CDRs decreased from the first to the second cycle and increased again during the third cycle in most centres, whereas CDRs increased in Spain with each successive screening cycle.
conclusionThe ERSPC data show a decreasing detection rate for low-grade cancer and substantial variation in the detection rate for intermediate- and high-grade cancer between centres across repeated screening rounds. Increasing interval and non-attender cancers indicate diminishing effectiveness of uniform screening schedules. These findings support personalised screening approaches and improved strategies to maintain participation.
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.