| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid V., et al.
(författare)
-
Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice : A microsimulation screening analysis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 122:21, s. 3386-3393
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus “good practice.”. METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386–3393.
|
|
| 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)
-
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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- 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
-
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.
|
|
