English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 1935, the pathologist Arnold Rice Rich reported on a study investigating his impression that microscopic prostate cancers could be detected at autopsy more commonly than were being diagnosed clinically.1 This study has been cited 215 times up to July 2006, and along with a 1954 autopsy series reported by LM Franks2 (cited 371 times), made a major contribution to our understanding of the natural history of prostate cancer. Rich’s study confirmed his intuition of a large disparity between microscopic prevalence of prostate cancer and its clinical incidence, in contrast with many other solid tumours where these differences are not as marked. This commentary discusses the contemporary relevance of these findings 71 years on, with a focus on their implications for understanding the epidemiology of prostate cancer and its early detection and treatment.

Commentary: Prostate cancer is omnipresent, but should we screen for it?