SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Hugosson J) srt2:(2020-2024)"

Sökning: WFRF:(Hugosson J) > (2020-2024)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 12
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  •  
2.
  • Lange, J., et al. (författare)
  • Impact of cancer screening on metastasis: A prostate cancer case study
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 28:4, s. 480-487
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background Trials of cancer screening present results in terms of deaths prevented, but metastasis is also a key endpoint that screening seeks to prevent. We developed a framework for projecting overall (de novo and progressive) metastases prevented in a screening trial using prostate cancer screening as a case study. Methods Mechanistic simulation model in which screening shifts a fraction of cases that would be metastatic at diagnosis to being non-metastatic. This shift increases the incidence of non-overdiagnosed, organ-confined cases. We use estimates of the risk of metastatic progression for these cases to project how many progress to metastasis after diagnosis and tally the projected de novo and progressive metastatic cases with and without screening. We use data on stage shift from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and data on the risk of metastatic progression from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 trial. We estimate the relative risk and absolute risk reductions in metastatic disease at diagnosis and compare these with reductions in overall metastases. Results Assuming no effect of screening beyond initial stage shift at diagnosis, the model projects a 43% reduction in metastasis at diagnosis but a 22% reduction in the cumulative probability of metastasis over 12 years in favor of screening. These results are consistent with the empirical findings from the ERSPC. Conclusion Any reduction in metastatic disease at diagnosis under screening is likely to be an overly optimistic predictor of the impact of screening on overall metastasis and disease-specific mortality.
  •  
3.
  •  
4.
  •  
5.
  •  
6.
  • Nyberg, Martin, et al. (författare)
  • Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-1691 .- 2666-1683. ; 20, s. 54-61
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Conclusive evidence of superiority in oncological outcome for robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is lacking. Objective: To compare RALP and RRP regarding recurrent disease and to report the mortality rate 6 yr after surgery. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 4003 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO)- a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial performed at 14 Swedish centers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Data were collected at visits and by patient questionnaires at 3, 12, and 24 mo, and through a structured telephone interview at 6 yr. Cause of death was retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register in Sweden. The modified Poisson regression approach was used for analyses. Results and limitations: After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-related confounders, no statistically significant difference was observed between RALP and RRP in biochemical recurrence rate (14 vs 16%, relative risk [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.06) or in not cured endpoint (22% vs 23%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.11). Stratified by D'Amico risk group, a significant benefit for RALP existed for recurrent disease in high-risk patients (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.86, p = 0.02). All-cause mortality was 3% (n = 96). Prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0.6% (n = 21) overall, 0.3% (n = 8) after RALP, and 1.5% (n = 13) after RRP. The nonrandomized design is a limitation. Conclusions: No significant difference was observed for cancer recurrence rate between RALP and RRP 6 yr after surgery. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found a significant benefit for RALP regarding recurrence rate in the high-risk group. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to make a firm conclusion and to evaluate a possible survival benefit. Patient summary: In general, the oncological outcome is comparable between robotic and open radical prostatectomy 6 yr after surgery. For high-risk patients, our findings indicate that there is an advantage for robotics, but further studies with longer follow-up time is needed to make a firm conclusion. (c) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
  •  
7.
  • Pasanen, Niko, et al. (författare)
  • Which men benefit from prostate cancer screening? Prostate cancer mortality by subgroup in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
  • 2024
  • Ingår i: BJU INTERNATIONAL. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X.
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55-69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease.ResultsThe hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55-59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44-1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60-64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77-1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50-1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65-69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.78) in Sweden.ConclusionWe were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift.
  •  
8.
  •  
9.
  • Kovac, E., et al. (författare)
  • Association of Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen Level With Long-term Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Among Patients Aged 55 to 60 Years: A Secondary Analysis of a Cohort in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: JAMA network open. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2574-3805. ; 3:1
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Importance: The use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is controversial because of the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent cancers. Optimal screening strategies are highly sought. Objective: To estimate the long-term risk of any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer based on baseline PSA levels among men aged 55 to 60 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a cohort in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial uses actuarial analysis to analyze the association of baseline PSA levels with long-term risk of any prostate cancer and of clinically significant prostate cancer among men aged 55 to 60 years enrolled in the screening group of the trial between 1993 and 2001. Exposure: Single PSA measurement at study entry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Long-term risk of any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer diagnoses. Results: There were 10968 men aged 55 to 60 years (median [interquartile range] age, 57 [55-58] years) at study enrollment in the screening group of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial who had long-term follow-up. Actuarial 13-year incidences of clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis among participants with a baseline PSA of 0.49 ng/mL or less was 0.4% (95% CI, 0%-0.8%); 0.50-0.99 ng/mL, 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.9%); 1.00-1.99 ng/mL, 5.4% (95% CI, 4.4%-6.4%); 2.00-2.99 ng/mL, 10.6% (95% CI, 8.3%-12.9%); 3.00-3.99 ng/mL, 15.3% (95% CI, 11.4%-19.2%); and 4.00 ng/mL and greater, 29.5% (95% CI, 24.2%-34.8%) (all pairwise log-rank P≤.004). Only 15 prostate cancer-specific deaths occurred during 13 years of follow-up, and 9 (60.0%) were among men with a baseline PSA level of 2.00 ng/mL or higher. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a cohort from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, baseline PSA levels among men aged 55 to 60 years were associated with long-term risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. These findings suggest that repeated screening can be less frequent among men aged 55 to 60 years with a low baseline PSA level (ie, <2.00 ng/mL) and possibly discontinued among those with baseline PSA levels of less than 1.00 ng/mL.
  •  
10.
  • Stinesen Kollberg, K., et al. (författare)
  • Prostate specific antigen and biopsy contamination in the Göteborg-1 randomized, population-based, prostate cancer screening trial
  • 2022
  • Ingår i: Journal of Urology. - : American urological association. - 0022-5347 .- 1527-3792. ; 208:5, s. 1018-1027
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • PURPOSE: Even when a screening study has demonstrated a mortality reduction, the degree of pre-testing and contamination is of importance as it can dilute the "true" effect of screening. Our object was to describe the level of pre-testing and contamination in the Göteborg-1 prostate cancer screening trial.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20,000 men, 50-64 years old, were invited in 1994 and randomized to either a screening group (offered prostate specific antigen testing every 2 years) or to a control group. Follow-up was through December 31, 2014. Outcome measurement was overall testing in the screening group and control group. A positive prostate specific antigen test was defined as a prostate specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml.RESULTS: In the study, 4.2% in the screening group and 4.6% men in the control group were tested before study start. During follow-up, 72% in the control group took at least 1 prostate specific antigen test (contamination) compared to 87% of men in the screening group. Of all prostate specific antigens, 24% in the screening group and 39% in the control group were above threshold. In total, 66% of the men underwent prostate biopsy within 12 months from a raised prostate specific antigen in the screening group and 28% in the control group.CONCLUSIONS: Similar proportions of men were prostate specific antigen-tested in both the screening group and control group, yet only a minority of contamination prostate specific antigens led to biopsy. Also, men in the screening group started screening at a younger age. These could both be explanations for our result that organized screening is more effective in reducing prostate cancer mortality than non-organized testing. When carried out properly and compared to an unscreened population, the effects of organized screening are likely even greater than previously shown in the Göteborg screening trial.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 12

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