↓ Skip to main content

American Association for Cancer Research

Article Metrics

Screening Men at Increased Risk for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Model Estimates of Benefits and Harms

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Screening Men at Increased Risk for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Model Estimates of Benefits and Harms
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, October 2016
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roman Gulati, Heather H. Cheng, Paul H. Lange, Peter S. Nelson, Ruth Etzioni

Abstract

Guidelines for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in subgroups with increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis due to race or genotype are underdeveloped. Our goal was to investigate types of increased PCa risk and implications for targeted screening. Computer simulation of subgroups with average and hypothetical increased risk(s) of onset of latent disease, progression, and/or cancer-specific death. For each subgroup, we predicted lifetime probabilities of overdiagnosis and life saved under more and less intensive PSA screening strategies. An application estimated risks of onset among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the IMPACT study using maximum likelihood. Our simulations implied PSA screening can save more lives among subgroups with increased risk than with average risk, but more intensive screening did not always improve harm-benefit tradeoffs. IMPACT data were consistent with increased risks of onset among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR=1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.59 and HR=1.81, 95% CI 1.14-2.78, respectively). Our analysis suggests screening BRCA2 mutation carriers earlier and more frequently than the average-risk population, but a lower PSA threshold for biopsy is unlikely to improve outcomes. Effective screening in men with increased PCa risk depends on the manner in which the risk is increased. More intensive screening is not always optimal. Guidelines for screening men at increased PCa risk should consider the mechanism inducing the increased risk. While the benefit of screening may be greater in men with increased risks, more intensive screening is not always appropriate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,828,179
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#1,423
of 3,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,399
of 277,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.