Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42571431›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Prostate Cancer Mortality in Men not Attending a Population-based Screening Program: The 'Good', the 'Bad', and the 'Ugly' After 20-yr Follow-up in the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Renée C A Leenen, Esmée F H Mulder, Sebastiaan Remmers, Ivo I de Vos, Kirsi Talala, Jonas Hugosson, Rebecka Arnsrud-Godtman, Elly Den Hond, Arnauld Villers, Gregoire Pionas and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Renée C A LeenenErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Esmée F H MulderErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan RemmersErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivo I de VosErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kirsi TalalaCancer Society of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Jonas HugossonDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Rebecka Arnsrud-GodtmanDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Elly Den HondProvincial Institute of Hygiene (PIH), Antwerp, Belgium.
Arnauld VillersDepartment of Urology, CHU Lille, University Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.
Gregoire PionasDepartment of Urology, Clinique Beau Soleil, Montpellier, France.
Luis LlaneDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Marcos LujanDepartment of Urology. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina, Madrid, Spain.
Giuseppe GoriniOncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Donella PulitiOncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Maciej KwiatkowskiDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Stephen WylerDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Chris BangmaErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Fritz H SchroderErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anssi AuvinenProstate Cancer Research Center, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Monique J RoobolErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Urology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ERSPC Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Nonattendance can substantially decrease the effectiveness of existing and potential future population-based screening programmes for (prostate) cancer Methods: This secondary analysis included 161 380 men aged 55-69 yr randomised to receive invitations for Prostate-specific antigen-based (PSA)-based screening ( Key Findings and limitations: Of the 72 460 men in the SA, 12,401 (17%) were defined as never-attenders. At 20 yr, the cumulative PCSM was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.6) among never-attenders, 1.2% (95% CI, 1.2-1.3) in the CA, and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.9-1.0) in ever-attenders. For PCSM, we observed an RR of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6; Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Men randomised to the SA but who never attended had higher observed PCSM than men in the CA who were not offered screening. Conversely, men in the SA who attended screening had lower observed PCSM than men in the CA, with a larger observed difference than that reported in prior intention-to-screen analyses.

Indexed as

Early detection of cancerFollow-up studiesProstate cancerProstate-specific antigen

Identifiers

PMID42571431
PMCPMC13452280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.