Literature DB >> 10404100

Changing role of 3 screening modalities in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (Rotterdam).

P M Beemsterboer1, R Kranse, H J de Koning, J D Habbema, F H Schröder.   

Abstract

A randomized screening trial was started in Europe to show the effect of early detection and treatment of prostate cancer on mortality (European Study on Screening of Prostate Cancer). In one centre (Rotterdam), the screening protocol initially consisted of 3 screening tests for all men: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). A PSA value of >/=4 ng/ml and/or an abnormality on DRE and/or TRUS were taken to indicate that biopsy was required. In this study, we examined the possibilities for a more efficient screening protocol. A logistic-regression model was used to predict the number of cancers for PSA < 4 ng/ml if all men were biopsied (predictive index, PI). Effects of a change in PSA cut-off on the screening results were explored. Weights were applied to procedures and cancers to explore the possibility of expressing differences between protocols in one overall figure. Biopsies in men with PSA < 1 ng/ml and a positive DRE or TRUS were very inefficient. Applying DRE and TRUS only in the PSA ranges 1.5 to 3.9 and 2 to 3.9 ng/ml to determine whether a biopsy was required would result in a decrease of 29 to 36% in biopsies and a decrease of 5 to 8% in cancers. However, the results of DRE and TRUS could not be duplicated entirely. A protocol with only PSA >/= 3 ng/ml as a direct biopsy indicator resulted in a decrease of detected cancers by 7.6% and of biopsies by 12%, also a much simpler screening procedure. Use of the PI would give more efficient protocols, but this should be viewed as a preliminary finding, with the disadvantage of necessitating many additional screening visits. Since the results of DRE and TRUS could not be duplicated, a change in protocol towards PSA >/= 3 ng/ml appears acceptable. If this proves effective, a final judgement about the optimal combination of screening tests may be made. Int. J. Cancer (Pred. Oncol.) 84:437-441, 1999. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10404100     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19990820)84:4<437::aid-ijc19>3.0.co;2-s

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  9 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison with other diagnostic modalities--a radiologist's perspective.

Authors:  Tobias Penzkofer; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies.

Authors:  Bjoern Grabski; Leif Baeurle; Annemie Loch; Bjoern Wefer; Udo Paul; Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  External validation of the computerized analysis of TRUS of the prostate with the ANNA/C-TRUS system: a potential role of artificial intelligence for improving prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Vito Lorusso; Boukary Kabre; Geraldine Pignot; Nicolas Branger; Andrea Pacchetti; Jeanne Thomassin-Piana; Serge Brunelle; Nicola Nicolai; Gennaro Musi; Naji Salem; Emanuele Montanari; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gwenaelle Gravis; Jochen Walz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-03-06       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  [Prostate cancer diagnosis using ultrasound elastography. Introduction of a novel technique and first clinical results].

Authors:  H J Sommerfeld; J M Garcia-Schürmann; J Schewe; K Kühne; F Cubick; R R Berges; A Lorenz; A Pesavento; U Scheipers; H Ermert; J Pannek; S Philippou; T Senge; S Scheipers
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-03-04       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Transrectal contrast enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M H Wink; J J M C H de la Rosette; C A Grimbergen; H Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Novel contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Martijn Smeenge; Massimo Mischi; M Pilar Laguna Pes; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Hessel Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  The future perspectives in transrectal prostate ultrasound guided biopsy.

Authors:  Sung Ii Hwang; Hak Jong Lee
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2014-10-01

8.  Do additional cores from cancer-suspicious lesions on transrectal ultrasound improve prostate cancer detection including index tumors over 12-core systematic biopsy?

Authors:  Jung Ki Jo; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee; Seong Jin Jeong
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  Digital Rectal Examination in Stockholm3 Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Joel Andersson; Thorgerdur Palsdottir; Anna Lantz; Markus Aly; Henrik Grönberg; Lars Egevad; Martin Eklund; Tobias Nordström
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-08-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.