| 1. |
- Finne, Patrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Lead-time in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European journal of cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 46:17, s. 3102-3108
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Lead-time is defined as the time by which screening advances the diagnosis compared with absence of screening. A sufficiently long lead-time needs to be achieved so that cancer can be detected while still curable. A very short lead-time may indicate poor sensitivity of the screening test, while a very long lead-time suggests overdiagnosis. Material and methods In the first screening round, a total of 56,294 men aged 55–74 years were screened with serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) in five countries of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with an overall detection rate (prevalence) of 2.8% (1972 prostate cancers). Prostate cancer incidence among 92,142 men randomly allocated to the control arm of the trial was also assessed. Lead-time was estimated as the time required to accumulate a similar cumulative risk of prostate cancer in the control arm to the detection rate in the intervention arm, i.e. from the ratio of detection rate (prevalence of screen-detected cases) and expected incidence (cumulative risk). Results Using a serum PSA cut-off of 4 ng/ml, the mean lead-time in the whole study population was estimated as 6.8 years (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.9–8.4). It was 8 years in The Netherlands, 6 in Sweden and Finland, 5 in Italy and 4 in Belgium. The mean lead-time was similar, 6–7 years, at ages 50–64 years, but close to 8 years among men aged 65–74 years. A lower PSA cut-off level of 3 ng/ml used in Sweden and The Netherlands prolonged the mean lead-time by approximately 1 year. Lead-time based on advanced prostate cancer only was slightly shorter, mean 5.3 years (95% CI 4.6–6.0). The lead-time for the second screening round was slightly shorter than that for the first (5.9, 95% CI 5.4–6.4), reflecting a similar relation between detection rate and control group incidence. Conclusion The lead-time for prostate cancer found in ERSPC substantially exceeded that found for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. One round of prostate cancer screening can advance clinical diagnosis by 4–8 years. Overdiagnosis or detection of non-progressive tumours may contribute substantially to the lead-time.
|
|
| 2. |
- Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M, et al.
(författare)
-
Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 367:7, s. 595-605
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- After 11 years of follow-up, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality among men who underwent screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, the extent to which harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit is uncertain.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schröder, Fritz H, et al.
(författare)
-
Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 366:11, s. 981-90
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schröder, Fritz H, et al.
(författare)
-
Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 360:13, s. 1320-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer was initiated in the early 1990s to evaluate the effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing on death rates from prostate cancer.
|
|
| 6. |
- van Leeuwen, Pim J, et al.
(författare)
-
Impacts of a population based prostate cancer screening programme on excess total mortality rates in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of medical screening. - 1475-5793. ; 20:1, s. 33-38
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of screening in terms of excess mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). METHODS: A total of 141,578 men aged 55–69 were randomized to systematic screening or usual care in ERSPC sections in Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The excess number of deaths was defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in the prostate cancer (PC)patients and the expected number of deaths up to 31 December 2006. The expected number was derived from mortality of all study participants before a diagnosis with PC adjusted for study centre,study arm and study attendance. The excess mortality rates were compared between the two study arms. RESULTS: The PC incidence was 9.25 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 5.49 per 1000 person-years in the control arm, relative risk (RR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]1.62–1.76). The excess mortality among men with PC was 0.29 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 0.37 per 1000 person-years in the control arm; the RR for excess mortality was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55–1.08). The absolute risk reduction in the excess mortality was 0.08 per 1000 person-years. The overall mortality was not significantly different between the intervention and the control arms of the study: RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96–1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although the reduction in excess mortality was not statistically significant, the between arm reduction in excess mortality rate was in line with the previously reported 20% reduction in the disease-specific mortality. This finding indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in the ERSPC trial cannot be due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.
|
|
| 7. |
- Wolters, Tineke, et al.
(författare)
-
The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in the large screening trial ERSPC.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. - : Wiley. - 1097-0215. ; 126:10, s. 2387-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Prostate cancer (PC) mortality is the most valid end-point in screening trials, but could be influenced by the choice of initial treatment if treatment has an effect on mortality. In this study, PC treatment was compared between the screening and control arms in a screening trial. Data were collected from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The characteristics and initial treatment of PC cases detected in the screening and the control arm were compared. Polytomous logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influence of study arm on treatment, adjusting for potential confounders and with statistical imputation of missing values. A total of 8,389 PC cases were detected, 5,422 in the screening arm and 3,145 in the control arm. Polytomous regression showed that trial arm was associated with treatment choice after correction for missing values, especially in men with high-risk PC. A control subject with high-risk PC was more likely than a screen subject to receive radiotherapy (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.01-2.05, p = 0.047), expectant management (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.33-6.42, p = 0.007) or hormonal treatment (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.07-2.94, p = 0.026) instead of radical prostatectomy. However, trial arm had only a minor role in treatment choice compared to other variables. In conclusion, a small effect of trial arm on treatment choice was seen, particularly in men with high-risk PC. Therefore, differences in treatment between arms are unlikely to play a major role in the interpretation of the results of the ERSPC.
|
|
