Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Findings From the Initial Screening Round of a Randomized Trial

Andriole, G. L., Levin, D. L., Crawford, E. D., Gelmann, E. P., Pinsky, P. F., Chia, D., Kramer, B. S., Reding, D., Church, T. R., Grubb, R. L., Izmirlian, G., Ragard, L. R., Clapp, J. D., Prorok, P. C., Gohagan, J. K., for the PLCO Project Team·2005·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefit of screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE) is uncertain and is under evaluation in a randomized prospective trial, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Although the final results are several years away, the initial round of screening is complete. We describe the population enrolled in the PLCO trial, their baseline PSA and DRE screening results, and diagnostic follow-up results during the first year of follow-up. METHODS: A total of 38,350 men were randomly assigned to the screening arm of the PLCO trial from November 1993 through June 2001. Men were advised to seek diagnostic follow-up from their primary care provider if their DRE was suspicious for cancer and/or if their serum PSA level was higher than 4 ng/mL. PLCO trial staff obtained records related to diagnostic follow-up. RESULTS: Compliance with both screening tests was high (more than 89%). At screening, 7.5% of men had a positive DRE (i.e., suspicious for cancer) and 7.9% had a PSA level higher than 4 ng/mL. Of the men with positive screening tests, 74.2% underwent additional diagnostic testing, and 31.5% underwent a prostatic biopsy within 1 year. Overall, 1.4% of the men in the screening arm were diagnosed with prostate cancer, the majority of whom had clinically localized cancer. These compliance, biopsy, and cancer detection rates appear to be representative of contemporary practice patterns. CONCLUSION: The PLCO trial is evaluating PSA- and DRE-based screening for prostate cancer in a clinically valid manner. Whether such screening will result in a reduction of prostate cancer mortality cannot be answered until the randomized comparison is completed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/dji065

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Andriole, G. L., Levin, D. L., Crawford, E. D., Gelmann, E. P., Pinsky, P. F., Chia, D., Kramer, B. S., Reding, D., Church, T. R., Grubb, R. L., Izmirlian, G., Ragard, L. R., Clapp, J. D., Prorok, P. C., Gohagan, J. K., & for the PLCO Project Team
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2005-03-15
Volume
97
Issue
6
Pages
433-438
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2132767715
Cited by
244
References
0
FWCI
20.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Findings From the Initial Screening Round of a Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji065
The paper
Andriole, G. L., Levin, D. L., Crawford, E. D., Gelmann, E. P., Pinsky, P. F., Chia, D., Kramer, B. S., Reding, D., Church, T. R., Grubb, R. L., Izmirlian, G., Ragard, L. R., Clapp, J. D., Prorok, P. C., Gohagan, J. K., & for the PLCO Project Team. (2005). Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Findings From the Initial Screening Round of a Randomized Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji065

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.