ReviewCureus2026
Prostate Cancer Screening: Current Controversies and Future Directions.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has been central to prostate cancer detection since FDA approval for early detection in 1994, yet its widespread application has generated enduring controversy owing to limited specificity, overdiagnosis, and the quality-of-life harms of overtreatment. Prostate cancer is among the most prevalent malignancies in men globally. Major randomized trials, including the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, and the more recent ProtecT trial, reported divergent conclusions about prostate cancer-specific mortality benefit. International guidelines from the American Urological Association/Society of Urologic Oncology (AUA/SUO), the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and the European Association of Urology (EAU) differ substantially in their recommended age thresholds, screening intervals, and approaches to shared decision-making, reflecting the genuine uncertainty in the evidence base. Emerging modalities, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, serum biomarkers including the Prostate Health Index and 4Kscore, and germline genomic risk stratification, offer pathways toward more individualized screening. Polygenic risk scores and artificial intelligence-based tools show promise for integrating multiple risk factors, though most approaches remain under active investigation and require prospective validation before routine clinical deployment. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on PSA-based screening, evaluates the principal sources of controversy, compares international guideline recommendations, and examines emerging risk-stratified approaches. Current evidence supports individualized, risk-adapted screening over universal PSA threshold application, with shared decision-making as the essential framework for integrating emerging biomarker and genomic data into clinical practice.
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.