The DOI matches its Crossref record.
National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening
Abstract
Purpose: In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) discouraged prostate-specific antigen (PSA) –based prostate cancer screening. Previous USPSTF recommendations did not appreciably alter prostate cancer screening. Therefore, we designed a trend analysis to determine the population-based impact of the 2012 recommendation. Methods: The nationally representative National Health Interview Survey was used to estimate the proportion of men age 40 years and older who saw a physician and were screened for prostate cancer in 2013. An externally validated 9-year mortality index was used to analyze screening rates based on remaining life expectancy. Screening rates from 2005, 2010, and 2013 were compared using logistic regression. Results: PSA-based screening did not significantly change from 2010 to 2013 among 40- to 49-year-old men (from 12.5% to 11.2%; P = .4). Screening rates significantly declined in men age 50 to 59 years (from 33.2% to 24.8%; P < .01), age 60 to 74 years (from 51.2% to 43.6%; P < .01), and age 75 years or older (from 43.9% to 37.1%; P = .03). A large percentage of men were screened for prostate cancer despite a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality, including approximately one third of men older than age 75 years. Approximately 1.4 million men age 65 years or older with a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality were screened in 2013. Conclusion: Prostate cancer screening significantly declined among men older than age 50 years after the 2012 USPSTF guideline discouraging PSA-based screening. A significant proportion of men continue to be screened despite a high risk of 9-year mortality, including one third of men age 75 years and older.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2016) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21332 · Cited by 16,003
Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Mohler, J. L., Antonarakis, E. S., Armstrong, A. J., D’Amico, A. V., Davis, B. J., Dorff, T., Eastham, J. A., Enke, C. A., Farrington, T. A., Higano, C. S., et al. (2019) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023 · Cited by 1,532
Prostate Cancer Incidence and PSA Testing Patterns in Relation to USPSTF Screening Recommendations
Jemal, A., Fedewa, S. A., Ma, J., Siegel, R., Lin, C. C., Brawley, O., & Ward, E. M. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.14905 · Cited by 469
Estimated global cancer incidence in the oldest adults in 2018 and projections to 2050
Pilleron, S., Soto‐Perez‐de‐Celis, E., Vignat, J., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Bray, F., & Sarfati, D. (2021) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.33232 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Drazer, M. W., Huo, D., & Eggener, S. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2015-08-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2416-2423
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2117599049
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.12
- 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: National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2015.61.6532
- The paper
- Drazer, M. W., Huo, D., & Eggener, S. E. (2015). National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.61.6532
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.