| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Finne, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening.
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Int J Cancer. - : Wiley. ; 111:2, s. 310-315
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our objective was to determine whether multivariate algorithms based on serum total PSA, the free proportion of PSA, age, digital rectal examination and prostate volume can reduce the rate of false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening more effectively than the proportion of free PSA alone at 95% sensitivity. A total of 1,775 consecutive 55- to 67-year-old men with a serum PSA of 4-10 g/l in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer were included. To predict the presence of cancer, multivariate algorithms were constructed using logistic regression (LR) and a multilayer perceptron neural network with Bayesian regularization (BR-MLP). A prospective setting was simulated by dividing the data set chronologically into one set for training and validation (67%, n = 1,183) and one test set (33%, n = 592). The diagnostic models were calibrated using the training set to obtain 95% sensitivity. When applied to the test set, the LR model, the BR-MLP model and the proportion of free PSA reached 92%, 87% and 94% sensitivity and reduced 29%, 36% and 22% of the false-positive PSA results, respectively. At a fixed sensitivity of 95% in the test set, the LR model eliminated more false-positive PSA results (22%) than the proportion of free PSA alone (17%) (p < 0.001), whereas the BR-MLP model did not (19%) (p = 0.178). The area under the ROC curve was larger for the LR model (0.764, p = 0.030) and the BR-MLP model (0.760, p = 0.049) than for the proportion of free PSA (0.718). A multivariate algorithm can be used to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies in screening more effectively than the proportion of free PSA alone, but the algorithms will require updating when clinical practice develops with time. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hugosson, Jonas, 1955, et al.
(författare)
-
A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 76:1, s. 43-51
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has previously demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening decreases prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. Objective: To determine whether PSA screening decreases PCa mortality for up to 16 yr and to assess results following adjustment for nonparticipation and the number of screening rounds attended. Design, setting, and participants: This multicentre population-based randomised screening trial was conducted in eight European countries. Report includes 182 160 men, followed up until 2014 (maximum of 16 yr), with a predefined core age group of 162 389 men (55-69 yr), selected from population registry. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The outcome was PCa mortality, also assessed with adjustment for nonparticipation and the number of screening rounds attended. Results and limitations: The rate ratio of PCa mortality was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.89, p < 0.001) at 16 yr. The difference in absolute PCa mortality increased from 0.14% at 13 yr to 0.18% at 16 yr. The number of men needed to be invited for screening to prevent one PCa death was 570 at 16 yr compared with 742 at 13 yr. The number needed to diagnose was reduced to 18 from 26 at 13 yr. Men with PCa detected during the first round had a higher prevalence of PSA >20 ng/ml (9.9% compared with 4.1% in the second round, p < 0.001) and higher PCa mortality (hazard ratio = 1.86, p < 0.001) than those detected subsequently. Conclusions: Findings corroborate earlier results that PSA screening significantly reduces PCa mortality, showing larger absolute benefit with longer follow-up and a reduction in excess incidence. Repeated screening may be important to reduce PCa mortality on a population level. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes from prostate cancer in a large European population. We found that repeated screening reduces the risk of dying from prostate cancer. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
|
|
| 5. |
- van den Bergh, Roderick C N, et al.
(författare)
-
Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: BJU international. - 1464-410X. ; 103:11, s. 1472-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To assess whether men newly diagnosed with Gleason 7 prostate cancer are eligible for active surveillance (AS) instead of radical treatment. AS is an appropriate initial strategy in selected men who are presently diagnosed with prostate cancer, as many tumours will not progress during a patient's lifetime. PATIENTS AND METHODS Cancer-specific-, overall and treatment-free survival were analysed retrospectively in men with Gleason score 7 cancer who were initially managed expectantly. All were screen-detected in four centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS In 50 men active therapy was initially withheld if they had Gleason 7 disease; 29 of 50 (58%) would otherwise have been suitable for AS, as they had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < or =10.0 ng/mL, a PSA density of <0.2 ng/mL/mL, stage T1c/T2, and two or fewer positive biopsy-cores; 44 of 50 (88%) had a Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7. The mean (range) age of the men was 69.5 (59.6-76.2) years and the median (interquartile range) follow-up was 2.6 (0.8-5.0) years; the mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 1.8. The 6-year cancer-specific survival (nine patients at risk) was 100%, which sharply contrasted with the 68% overall survival. Men alive at the time of analysis had a favourable PSA level and PSA-doubling time. The 6-year treatment-free survival was only 59%, with most patients switching to active therapy, justified on the basis of their PSA level. However, men with otherwise favourable tumour characteristics and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 remained treatment-free significantly longer than their counterparts with unfavourable other tumour features and a Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7. CONCLUSION In selected patients with screen-detected Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer, AS might be an option, especially in those with comorbidity and/or a short life-expectancy.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 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.
|
|
