| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Auvinen, Anssi, et al.
(författare)
-
Test sensitivity in the European prostate cancer screening trial: results from Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. - 1538-7755. ; 18:7, s. 2000-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Test sensitivity pertains to the ability of a test to identify subjects with the target disorder. In cancer screening, test sensitivity can be estimated using interval cancer incidence as an indicator of false-negative result. A randomized trial provides the optimal approach for estimating test sensitivity, as the control arm provides the expected rates. We estimated the sensitivity of the prostate-specific antigen test using incidence method, i.e., based on incidence of interval cancer among subjects with negative screening results, compared with that in the control arm. Data from three centers in the European randomized screening trial were used to estimate interval cancer incidence (I(I)) among 39,389 men with negative screening tests. This was compared with incidence among the 79,525 men in the control arm of the trial (I(c)) to estimate test sensitivity (S = 1 - I(I) / I(C)). Confidence intervals were calculated using simulations, assuming that the number of cases follows a Poisson distribution. The estimated test sensitivity following the first screen was 0.87 (0.83-0.92) in Finland, 0.87 (0.62-1.00) in Sweden, and 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) in the Netherlands. There was some indication of a higher test sensitivity for aggressive cancers (0.85-0.98 for non-organ-confined cases or Gleason 8-10) and for the second screening round (approximately 0.85-0.95). Test sensitivity varied to some extent between the three centers in the European trial, probably reflecting variation in screening protocols, but was acceptable in the first screening round, and may be better for aggressive cancers and in the second screening round.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Bratt, Ola, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ Oncology. - 2752-7948. ; 2:1, s. 1-9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Long-term screening with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and systematic prostate biopsies can reduce prostate cancer mortality but leads to unacceptable overdiagnosis. Over the past decade, diagnostic methods have improved and the indolent nature of low-grade prostate cancer has been established. These advances now enable more selective detection of potentially lethal prostate cancer. This non-systematic review summarises relevant diagnostic advances, previous and ongoing screening trials, healthcare policies and important remaining knowledge gaps. Evidence synthesis and conclusions: The strong association between low serum PSA values and minimal long-term risk of prostate cancer death allows for adjusting screening intervals. Use of risk calculators, biomarkers and MRI to select men with a raised PSA value for biopsy and lesion-targeting rather than systematic prostate biopsies reduce the detection of low-grade cancer and thereby overdiagnosis. These improvements recently led the European Union to recommend its member states to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of organised screening programmes for prostate cancer. Nonetheless, important knowledge gaps remain such as the performance of modern diagnostic methods in long-term screening programmes and their impact on mortality. The knowledge gaps are currently being addressed in three large randomised screening trials. Population-based pilot programmes will contribute critical practical experience.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
No excess mortality after prostate biopsy: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: BJU international. - 1464-410X. ; 107:12, s. 1912-1917
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Type - Harm (RCT)Level of Evidence1b OBJECTIVES: To assess possible excess mortality associated with prostate biopsy among screening participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From three centres in the ERSPC (Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden) 50194 screened men aged 50.2-78.4 years were prospectively followed. A cohort of 12959 first-time screening-positive men (i.e. with biopsy indication) was compared with another cohort of 37235 first-time screening-negative men. Overall mortality rates (i.e. other cause than prostate cancer mortality) were calculated and the 120-day and 1-year cumulative mortality were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a log-rank test for statistical significance. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and statistical significance were evaluated using Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for age, total PSA level, screening centre and whether a biopsy indication was present, or whether a biopsy was actually performed or not. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative 120-day other cause mortality between the two groups of men: 0.24% (95% CI, 0.17-0.34) for screening-positive men vs 0.24% (95% CI, 0.20-0.30) for screening-negative men (P= 0.96). This implied no excess mortality for screening-positive men. Screening-positive men who were not biopsied (n= 1238) had a more than fourfold risk of other cause mortality during the first 120 days compared to screening-negative men: RR, 4.52 (95% CI, 2.63-7.74) (P < 0.001), adjusted for age, whereas men who were actually biopsied (n= 11721) had half the risk: RR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.73) (P= 0.002), adjusted for age. Only 14/31 (45%) of the screening-positive men who died within 120 days were biopsied and none died as an obvious complication to the biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy is not associated with excess mortality and fatal complications appear to be very rare.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
