| 1. |
- Finne, Patrik, et al.
(author)
-
Lead-time in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
- 2010
-
In: European journal of cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 46:17, s. 3102-3108
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Greenlees, Ruth, et al.
(author)
-
Paper 6: EUROCAT Member Registries: Organization and Activities
- 2011
-
In: Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today: Reviews. - : Wiley. - 1542-975X. ; 91:Suppl. 1, s. 51-100
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: EUROCAT is a network of population-based congenital anomaly registries providing standardized epidemiologic information on congenital anomalies in Europe. There are three types of EUROCAT membership: full, associate, or affiliate. Full member registries send individual records of all congenital anomalies covered by their region. Associate members transmit aggregate case counts for each EUROCAT anomaly subgroup by year and by type of birth. This article describes the organization and activities of each of the current 29 full member and 6 associate member registries of EUROCAT. METHODS: Each registry description provides information on the history and funding of the registry, population coverage including any changes in coverage over time, sources for ascertaining cases of congenital anomalies, and upper age limit for registering cases of congenital anomalies. It also details the legal requirements relating to termination of pregnancy for fetal anomalies, the definition of stillbirths and fetal deaths, and the prenatal screening policy within the registry. Information on availability of exposure information and denominators is provided. The registry description describes how each registry conforms to the laws and guidelines regarding ethics, consent, and confidentiality issues within their own jurisdiction. Finally, information on electronic and web-based data capture, recent registry activities, and publications relating to congenital anomalies, along with the contact details of the registry leader, are provided. CONCLUSIONS: The registry description gives a detailed account of the organizational and operational aspects of each registry and is an invaluable resource that aids interpretation and evaluation of registry prevalence data. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 91: S51-S100, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
| 3. |
- Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M, et al.
(author)
-
Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.
- 2012
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 367:7, s. 595-605
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schröder, Fritz H, et al.
(author)
-
Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.
- 2012
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 366:11, s. 981-90
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Wolters, Tineke, et al.
(author)
-
The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in the large screening trial ERSPC.
- 2010
-
In: International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. - : Wiley. - 1097-0215. ; 126:10, s. 2387-93
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
