| 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. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Vickers, Andrew J., et al.
(författare)
-
Screening for Prostate Cancer: Early Detection or Overdetection?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Annual Review of Medicine. - : Annual Reviews. - 0066-4219 .- 1545-326X. ; 63, s. 161-170
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- A sophisticated reading of the randomized trial evidence suggests that, although screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce cancer-specific mortality, it does so at considerable cost in terms of the number of men who need to be screened, biopsied, and treated to prevent one death. The challenge is to design screening programs that maximize benefits (reducing prostate cancer mortality) and minimize costs (overtreatment). Recent research has suggested that this can be achieved by risk-stratifying screening and biopsy; increasing reliance on active surveillance for low-risk cancer; restricting radical prostatectomy to high-volume surgeons; and using appropriately high-dose radiotherapy. In current U. S. practice, however, many men who are screened are unlikely to benefit, most men found to have low-risk cancers are referred for unnecessary curative treatment, and much treatment is given at low-volume centers.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
