SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "L773:0302 2838 OR L773:1873 7560 ;pers:(Roobol Monique J)"

Sökning: L773:0302 2838 OR L773:1873 7560 > Roobol Monique J

  • Resultat 1-10 av 15
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Bul, Meelan, et al. (författare)
  • Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Worldwide: The PRIAS Study
  • 2013
  • Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 63:4, s. 597-603
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment are important side effects of screening for, and early detection of, prostate cancer (PCa). Active surveillance (AS) is of growing interest as an alternative to radical treatment of low-risk PCa. Objective: To update our experience in the largest worldwide prospective AS cohort. Design, setting, and participants: Eligible patients had clinical stage T1/T2 PCa, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <= 10 ng/ml, PSA density <0.2 ng/ml per milliliter, one or two positive biopsy cores, and Gleason score <= 6. PSA was measured every 3-6 mo, and volume-based repeat biopsies were scheduled after 1, 4, and 7 yr. Reclassification was defined as more than two positive cores or Gleason >6 at repeat biopsy. Recommendation for treatment was triggered in case of PSA doubling time <3 yr or reclassification. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors for reclassification at repeat biopsy. Active therapy-free survival (ATFS) was assessed with a Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of clinical characteristics with active therapy over time. Results and limitations: In total, 2494 patients were included and followed for a median of 1.6 yr. One or more repeat biopsies were performed in 1480 men, of whom 415 men (28%) showed reclassification. Compliance with the first repeat biopsy was estimated to be 81%. During follow-up, 527 patients (21.1%) underwent active therapy. ATFS at 2 yr was 77.3%. The strongest predictors for reclassification and switching to deferred treatment were the number of positive cores (two cores compared with one core) and PSA density. The disease-specific survival rate was 100%. Follow-up was too short to draw definitive conclusions about the safety of AS. Conclusions: Our short-term data support AS as a feasible strategy to reduce overtreatment. Clinical characteristics and PSA kinetics during follow-up can be used for risk stratification. Strict monitoring is even more essential in men with high-risk features to enable timely recognition of potentially aggressive disease and offer curative intervention. Limitations of using surrogate end points and markers in AS should be recognized.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  • Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al. (författare)
  • Could Differences in Treatment Between Trial Arms Explain the Reduction in Prostate Cancer Mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer?
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 75:6, s. 1015-1022
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Differential treatment between trial arms has been suggested to bias prostate cancer (PC) mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).To quantify the contribution of treatment differences to the observed PC mortality reduction between the screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA).A total of 14 136 men with PC (SA: 7310; CA: 6826) in the core age group (55-69yr) at 16yr of follow-up.The outcomes measurements were observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths by treatment allocation in the SA and CA, respectively. Primary treatment allocation was modeled using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for center, age, year, prostate-specific antigen, grade group, and tumor-node-metastasis stage. For each treatment, logistic regression models were fitted for risk of PC death, separately for the SA and CA, and using the same covariates as for the treatment allocation model. Treatment probabilities were multiplied by estimated PC death risks for each treatment based on one arm, and then summed and compared with the observed number of deaths.The difference between the observed and estimated treatment distributions (hormonal therapy, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and active surveillance/watchful waiting) in the two arms ranged from -3.3% to 3.3%. These figures, which represent the part of the treatment differences between arms that cannot be explained by clinicopathological differences, are small compared with the observed differences between arms that ranged between 7.2% and 10.1%. The difference between the observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths among men with PC was 0.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1%, 0.2%) when applying the CA model to the SA, had the two groups received identical primary treatment, given their clinical characteristics. When instead applying the SA model to the CA, the difference was, as expected, very similar-0.01% (95% CI -0.3%, 0.2%). Consistency of the results of the models demonstrates the robustness of the modeling approach. As the observed difference between trial arms was 4.2%, our findings suggest that differential treatment explains only a trivial proportion of the main findings of ERSPC. A limitation of the study is that only data on primary treatment were available.Use of prostate-specific antigen remains the predominant explanation for the reduction in PC mortality seen in the ERSPC trial and is not attributable to differential treatment between trial arms.This study shows that prostate cancer deaths in the European screening trial (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) were prevented because men were diagnosed and treated earlier through prostate-specific antigen screening, and not because of different, or better, treatment in the screening arm compared with the control arm.
  •  
4.
  • Carlsson, Sigrid, et al. (författare)
  • Predictive Value of Four Kallikrein Markers for Pathologically Insignificant Compared With Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Results From the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Section Rotterdam
  • 2013
  • Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 64:5, s. 693-699
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Treatment decisions can be difficult in men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To evaluate the ability of a panel of four kallikrein markers in blood-total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, intact PSA, and kallikrein-related peptidase 2-to distinguish between pathologically insignificant and aggressive disease on pathologic examination of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as well as to calculate the number of avoidable surgeries. Design, setting, and participants: The cohort comprised 392 screened men participating in rounds 1 and 2 of the Rotterdam arm of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Patients were diagnosed with PCa because of an elevated PSA >= 3.0 ng/ml and were treated with RP between 1994 and 2004. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We calculated the accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]) of statistical models to predict pathologically aggressive PCa (pT3-T4, extracapsular extension, tumor volume >0.5 cm(3), or any Gleason grade >= 4) based on clinical predictors (age, stage, PSA, biopsy findings) with and without levels of four kallikrein markers in blood. Results and limitations: A total of 261 patients (67%) had significant disease on pathologic evaluation of the RP specimen. While the clinical model had good accuracy in predicting aggressive disease, reflected in a corrected AUC of 0.81, the four kallikrein markers enhanced the base model, with an AUC of 0.84 (p < 0.0005). The model retained its ability in patients with low-risk and very-low-risk disease and in comparison with the Steyerberg nomogram, a published prediction model. Clinical application of the model incorporating the kallikrein markers would reduce rates of surgery by 135 of 1000 patients overall and 110 of 334 patients with pathologically insignificant disease. A limitation of the present study is that clinicians may be hesitant to make recommendations against active treatment on the basis of a statistical model. Conclusions: Our study provided proof of principle that predictions based on levels of four kallikrein markers in blood distinguish between pathologically insignificant and aggressive disease after RP with good accuracy. In the future, clinical use of the model could potentially reduce rates of immediate unnecessary active treatment. (c) 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
  •  
5.
  •  
6.
  •  
7.
  • Roobol, Monique J., et al. (författare)
  • Prostate Cancer Mortality Reduction by Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening Adjusted for Nonattendance and Contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)
  • 2009
  • Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 56:4, s. 584-591
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been shown to reduce prostate specific mortality by 20% in an intention to screen (ITS) analysis in a randomised trial (European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]). This effect may be diluted by nonattendance in men randomised to the screening arm and contamination in men randomised to the control arm. Objective: To assess the magnitude of the PCa-specific mortality reduction after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. Design, setting, and participants: We analysed the occurrence of PCa deaths during an average follow-up of 9 yr in 162 243 men 55-69 yr of age randomised in seven participating centres of the ERSPC. Centres were also grouped according to the type of randomisation (ie, before or after informed written consent). Intervention: Nonattendance was defined as nonattending the initial screening round in ERSPC. The estimate of contamination was based on PSA use in controls in ERSPC Rotterdam. Measurements: Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were compared between an ITS analysis and analyses adjusting for nonattendance and contamination using a statistical method developed for this purpose. Results and limitations: In the ITS analysis, the RR of PCa death in men allocated to the intervention arm relative to the control arm was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Adjustment for nonattendance resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.93), and additional adjustment for contamination using two different estimates led to estimated reductions of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51-0.92) to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), respectively. Contamination data were obtained through extrapolation of single-centre data. No heterogeneity was found between the groups of centres. Conclusions: PSA screening reduces the risk of dying of PCa by up to 31% in men actually screened. This benefit should be weighed against a degree of over diagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
  •  
8.
  • van Leeuwen, Pim J, et al. (författare)
  • Toward an Optimal Interval for Prostate Cancer Screening.
  • 2012
  • Ingår i: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 61:1, s. 171-176
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: The rate of decrease in advanced cancers is an estimate for determining prostate cancer (PCa) screening program effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Assess the effectiveness of PCa screening programs using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 55-64 yr were participants at two centers of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer: Gothenburg, Sweden (2-yr screening interval, n=4202), and Rotterdam, the Netherlands (4-yr screening interval, n=13 301). We followed participants until the date of PCa, the date of death, or the last follow-up at December 31, 2008, or up to a maximum of 12 yr after initial screening. Potentially life-threatening (advanced) cancer was defined as cancer with at least one of following characteristics: clinical stage ≥T3a, M1, or N1; serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20.0 ng/ml; or Gleason score ≥8 at biopsy. INTERVENTION: We compared the proportional total (advanced) cancer incidence (screen-detected and interval cases), defined as the ratio of the observed number of (advanced) cancers to the expected numbers of (advanced) cancers based on the control arm of the study. MEASUREMENTS: The proportional cancer incidence from the second screening round until the end of observation was compared using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From screening round 2 until the end of observation, the proportional cancer incidence was 3.64 in Gothenburg and 3.08 in Rotterdam (relative risk [RR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.33; p=0.009). The proportional advanced cancer incidence was 0.40 in Gothenburg and 0.69 in Rotterdam (RR: 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; p=0.048); the RR for detection of low-risk PCa was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p<0.001). This study was limited by the assumption that PSA testing in the control arm was similar in both centers. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-yr screening interval significantly reduced the incidence of advanced PCa; however, the 2-yr interval increased the overall risk of being diagnosed with (low-risk) PCa compared with a 4-yr interval in men aged 55-64 yr. Individualized screening algorithms must be improved to provide the strategy for this issue.
  •  
9.
  •  
10.
  • Vickers, Andrew J., et al. (författare)
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen Velocity for Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Result from a Large, Representative, Population-based Cohort
  • 2009
  • Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 56:5, s. 753-760
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: It has been suggested that changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) over time (ie, PSA velocity [PSAV]) aid prostate cancer detection. Some guidelines do incorporate PSAV cut points as an indication for biopsy. Objective: To evaluate whether PSAV enhances prediction of biopsy outcome in a large, representative, population-based cohort. Design, setting, and participants: There were 2742 screening-arm participants with PSA < 3 ng/ml at initial screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Rotterdam, Netherlands, or Goteborg, Sweden, and who were subsequently biopsied during rounds 2-6 due to elevated PSA. Measurements: Total, free, and intact PSA and human kallikrein 2 were measured for 16 screening rounds at intervals of 2 or 4 yr. We created logistic regression models to predict prostate cancer based on age and PSA, with or without free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA). PSAV was added to each model and any enhancement in predictive accuracy assessed by area under the curve (AUC). Results and limitations: PSAV led to small enhancements in predictive accuracy (AUC of 0.569 vs 0.531; 0.626 vs 0.609 if %fPSA was included), although not for high-grade disease. The enhancement depended on modeling a nonlinear relationship between PSAV and cancer. There was no benefit if we excluded men with higher velocities, which were associated with lower risk. These results apply to men in a screening program with elevated PSA; men with prior negative biopsy were not evaluated in this study. Conclusions: In men with PSA of about >= 3 ng/ml, we found little justification for formal calculation of PSAV or for use of PSAV cut points to determine biopsy. Informal assessment of PSAV will likely aid clinical judgment, such as a sudden rise in PSA suggesting prostatitis, which could be further evaluated before biopsy. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 15

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy