| 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. |
- Beral, Valerie, et al.
(författare)
-
The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of medical screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 1475-5793 .- 0969-1413. ; 18:4, s. 210-212
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer depends strongly on several factors, including the age at which regular screening starts, the period over which it continues, and the duration of follow-up after screening. Furthermore, more women would need to be INVITED for screening than would need to be SCREENED to prevent one death, since not all women invited attend for screening or are screened regularly. Failure to consider these important factors accounts for many of the major discrepancies between different published estimates. The randomised evidence indicates that, in high income countries, around one breast cancer death would be prevented in the long term for every 400 women aged 50-70 years regularly screened over a ten-year period.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bessa, Agustina, et al.
(författare)
-
Designing a Pragmatic Intervention to Help Improve the Bladder Cancer Patient Experience
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Inquiry. - : Sage Publications. - 0046-9580 .- 1945-7243. ; 58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bladder cancer (BC) is the 10th most common malignancy worldwide and the patient experience is found to be worse than that for patients diagnosed with other cancer types. We aimed to develop a wellbeing intervention to help improve the bladder cancer patient experience by ameliorating their health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We followed the 3 phases of the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for development of complex interventions. Following a systematic review of the literature on mental, sexual, and physical wellbeing, we conducted discussion groups with patients and healthcare professionals on these 3 themes. A consultation phase was then conducted with all relevant stakeholders to co-design a wellbeing intervention as part of a feasibility study. A pragmatic wellbeing feasibility trial was designed based on the hypothesis that a wellbeing program will increase patient awareness and attendance to services available to them and will better support their needs to improve HRQoL. The primary feasibility endpoints are patient attendance to the services offered and changes in HRQoL. The principle of patient centered care has strengthened the commitment to provide a holistic approach to support BC patients. In this study, we developed a wellbeing intervention in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals to meet an unmet need in terms of the BC patient experience.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bessa, Agustina, et al.
(författare)
-
The need for supportive mental wellbeing interventions in bladder cancer patients : A systematic review of the literature
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives There is an increased awareness of the effect of a bladder cancer diagnosis and its treatments on the mental wellbeing of patients. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of interventions to improve this mental wellbeing. This systematic review is the first phase of the Medical Research Council Framework for developing complex interventions and provides an overview of the published mental wellbeing interventions that could be used to design an intervention specific for BC patients.Methods This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines in January 2019 and studies were identified by conducting searches for Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Ovid Gateway. All included studies met the following criteria: mental wellbeing interventions of adults with medically confirmed diagnosis of any type of urological cancer, reported outcomes for specific HRQoL domains including psychological factors. The quality of evidence was assessed according to Down and Black 27-item checklist.Results A total of 15,094 records were collected from the literature search and 10 studies matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, nine interventions were for patients with prostate cancer and one for patients with kidney cancer. No studies were found for other urological cancers. Depression was the most commonly reported endpoint measured. Of the included studies with positive efficacy, three were group interventions and two were couple interventions. In the group interventions, all showed a reduction in depressive symptoms and in the couple interventions, there was a reduction in depressive symptoms and a favourable relationship cohesion. The couple interventions were the most feasible and acceptable, but further research was required for most of the studies.Conclusion While awareness of the importance of mental wellbeing in bladder cancer patients is growing, this systematic literature review highlights the gap of feasible and acceptable interventions for this patient population.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Broeders, Mireille, et al.
(författare)
-
The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe : a review of observational studies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 19, s. 14-25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To assess the impact of population-based mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe, considering different methodologies and limitations of the data. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of European trend studies (n = 17), incidence-based mortality (IBM) studies (n = 20) and case-control (CC) studies (n = 8). Estimates of the reduction in breast cancer mortality for women invited versus not invited and/or for women screened versus not screened were obtained. The results of IBM studies and CC studies were each pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Results Twelve of the 17 trend studies quantified the impact of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality. The estimated breast cancer mortality reductions ranged from 1% to 9% per year in studies reporting an annual percentage change, and from 28% to 36% in those comparing post- and prescreening periods. In the IBM studies, the pooled mortality reduction was 25% (relative risk [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.81) among invited women and 38% (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56-0.69) among those actually screened. The corresponding pooled estimates from the CC studies were 31% (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83), and 48% (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.65) adjusted for self-selection. Conclusions Valid observational designs are those where sufficient longitudinal individual data are available, directly linking a woman's screening history to her cause of death. From such studies, the best 'European' estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction is 25-31% for women invited for screening, and 38-48% for women actually screened. Much of the current controversy on breast cancer screening is due to the use of inappropriate methodological approaches that are unable to capture the true effect of mammographic screening.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
