BACKGROUND: The currently recommended frequency for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests for prostate cancer is 1 year, but the optimal screening interval is not known. Our goal was to determine if a longer interval would compromise the detection of curable prostate cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 4491 men aged 55-75 years, all participants in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of (population-based) Screening for Prostate Cancer, were invited to participate in an initial PSA screening. Men who received that screening were invited for a second screen 4 years later. Pathology findings from needle biopsy cores were compared for men in both rounds. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:A total of 4133 men were screened in the first round (the prevalence screen), and 2385 were screened in the second round. The median amount of cancer in needle biopsy sets was 7.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.4 mm to 8.6 mm) in the first round and 4.1 mm (95% CI = 2.6 mm to 5.6 mm) in the second round (P =.001). Thirty-six percent of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round but only 16% of those detected in the second round had a Gleason score of 7 or higher (mean difference = 20% [95% CI = 10% to 30%]; P<.001). Whereas 25% of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round had adverse prognostic features, only 6% of those detected in the second round did (mean difference = 19% [95% CI = 11% to 26%]; P<.001). Baseline PSA values were predictive for the amount of tumor in biopsies in men with cancer in the first round but not for that in the second round. CONCLUSION: Most large prostate cancers with high serum PSA levels were effectively detected in a prevalence screen. In this population, a screening interval of 4 years appears to be short enough to constrain the development of large tumors, although it is inconclusive whether this will result in a survival benefit.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The currently recommended frequency for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests for prostate cancer is 1 year, but the optimal screening interval is not known. Our goal was to determine if a longer interval would compromise the detection of curable prostate cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 4491 men aged 55-75 years, all participants in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of (population-based) Screening for Prostate Cancer, were invited to participate in an initial PSA screening. Men who received that screening were invited for a second screen 4 years later. Pathology findings from needle biopsy cores were compared for men in both rounds. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 4133 men were screened in the first round (the prevalence screen), and 2385 were screened in the second round. The median amount of cancer in needle biopsy sets was 7.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.4 mm to 8.6 mm) in the first round and 4.1 mm (95% CI = 2.6 mm to 5.6 mm) in the second round (P =.001). Thirty-six percent of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round but only 16% of those detected in the second round had a Gleason score of 7 or higher (mean difference = 20% [95% CI = 10% to 30%]; P<.001). Whereas 25% of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round had adverse prognostic features, only 6% of those detected in the second round did (mean difference = 19% [95% CI = 11% to 26%]; P<.001). Baseline PSA values were predictive for the amount of tumor in biopsies in men with cancer in the first round but not for that in the second round. CONCLUSION: Most large prostate cancers with high serum PSA levels were effectively detected in a prevalence screen. In this population, a screening interval of 4 years appears to be short enough to constrain the development of large tumors, although it is inconclusive whether this will result in a survival benefit.
Authors: Th H van der Kwast; C Lopes; C Santonja; C-G Pihl; I Neetens; P Martikainen; S Di Lollo; L Bubendorf; R F Hoedemaeker Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Elizabeth K Bancroft; Elizabeth C Page; Elena Castro; Hans Lilja; Andrew Vickers; Daniel Sjoberg; Melissa Assel; Christopher S Foster; Gillian Mitchell; Kate Drew; Lovise Mæhle; Karol Axcrona; D Gareth Evans; Barbara Bulman; Diana Eccles; Donna McBride; Christi van Asperen; Hans Vasen; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Janneke Ringelberg; Cezary Cybulski; Dominika Wokolorczyk; Christina Selkirk; Peter J Hulick; Anders Bojesen; Anne-Bine Skytte; Jimmy Lam; Louise Taylor; Rogier Oldenburg; Ruben Cremers; Gerald Verhaegh; Wendy A van Zelst-Stams; Jan C Oosterwijk; Ignacio Blanco; Monica Salinas; Jackie Cook; Derek J Rosario; Saundra Buys; Tom Conner; Margreet G Ausems; Kai-ren Ong; Jonathan Hoffman; Susan Domchek; Jacquelyn Powers; Manuel R Teixeira; Sofia Maia; William D Foulkes; Nassim Taherian; Marielle Ruijs; Apollonia T Helderman-van den Enden; Louise Izatt; Rosemarie Davidson; Muriel A Adank; Lisa Walker; Rita Schmutzler; Kathy Tucker; Judy Kirk; Shirley Hodgson; Marion Harris; Fiona Douglas; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Janez Zgajnar; Marc Tischkowitz; Virginia E Clowes; Rachel Susman; Teresa Ramón y Cajal; Nicholas Patcher; Neus Gadea; Allan Spigelman; Theo van Os; Annelie Liljegren; Lucy Side; Carole Brewer; Angela F Brady; Alan Donaldson; Vigdis Stefansdottir; Eitan Friedman; Rakefet Chen-Shtoyerman; David J Amor; Lucia Copakova; Julian Barwell; Veda N Giri; Vedang Murthy; Nicola Nicolai; Soo-Hwang Teo; Lynn Greenhalgh; Sara Strom; Alex Henderson; John McGrath; David Gallagher; Neil Aaronson; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Chris Bangma; David Dearnaley; Philandra Costello; Jorunn Eyfjord; Jeanette Rothwell; Alison Falconer; Henrik Gronberg; Freddie C Hamdy; Oskar Johannsson; Vincent Khoo; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Jan Lubinski; Ulrika Axcrona; Jane Melia; Joanne McKinley; Anita V Mitra; Clare Moynihan; Gad Rennert; Mohnish Suri; Penny Wilson; Emma Killick; Sue Moss; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Janet Bouttell; Jeremy Teoh; Peter K Chiu; Kevin S Chan; Chi-Fai Ng; Robert Heggie; Neil Hawkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Elizabeth K Bancroft; Elizabeth C Page; Mark N Brook; Sarah Thomas; Natalie Taylor; Jennifer Pope; Jana McHugh; Ann-Britt Jones; Questa Karlsson; Susan Merson; Kai Ren Ong; Jonathan Hoffman; Camilla Huber; Lovise Maehle; Eli Marie Grindedal; Astrid Stormorken; D Gareth Evans; Jeanette Rothwell; Fiona Lalloo; Angela F Brady; Marion Bartlett; Katie Snape; Helen Hanson; Paul James; Joanne McKinley; Lyon Mascarenhas; Sapna Syngal; Chinedu Ukaegbu; Lucy Side; Tessy Thomas; Julian Barwell; Manuel R Teixeira; Louise Izatt; Mohnish Suri; Finlay A Macrae; Nicola Poplawski; Rakefet Chen-Shtoyerman; Munaza Ahmed; Hannah Musgrave; Nicola Nicolai; Lynn Greenhalgh; Carole Brewer; Nicholas Pachter; Allan D Spigelman; Ashraf Azzabi; Brian T Helfand; Dorothy Halliday; Saundra Buys; Teresa Ramon Y Cajal; Alan Donaldson; Kathleen A Cooney; Marion Harris; John McGrath; Rosemarie Davidson; Amy Taylor; Peter Cooke; Kathryn Myhill; Matthew Hogben; Neil K Aaronson; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Chris H Bangma; Elena Castro; David Dearnaley; Alexander Dias; Tim Dudderidge; Diana M Eccles; Kate Green; Jorunn Eyfjord; Alison Falconer; Christopher S Foster; Henrik Gronberg; Freddie C Hamdy; Oskar Johannsson; Vincent Khoo; Hans Lilja; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Jan Lubinski; Karol Axcrona; Christos Mikropoulos; Anita V Mitra; Clare Moynihan; Holly Ni Raghallaigh; Gad Rennert; Rebecca Collier; Judith Offman; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Lauro S Gomez-Guerra; Margarita L Martinez-Fierro; Valeria Alcantara-Aragon; Rocio Ortiz-Lopez; Rebeca T Martinez-Villarreal; Idelma B Morales-Rodriguez; Raquel Garza-Guajardo; Marco A Ponce-Camacho; Augusto Rojas-Martinez Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 4.430