Literature DB >> 11857418

Prostate cancer mortality reduction by screening: power and time frame with complete enrollment in the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial.

Harry J de Koning1, Michael K Liem, Caroline A Baan, Rob Boer, Fritz H Schröder, Freda E Alexander.   

Abstract

From 1992-2001, 7 countries in Europe gradually recruited men for the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. Centres recruit different age groups and have different designs for recruiting and countries have different underlying risks for prostate cancer. Recruitment has reached 163,126 men aged 55-69 at entry now. Our purpose was to calculate the power of the trial and at what point in time can statistically significant differences in prostate cancer mortality be expected. Recruitment data were collected from the screening centres. We calculated the expected number of prostate cancer deaths in each follow-up year, based on national statistics and expected rate in trial entrants. The power was calculated using different assumptions on intervention effect and contamination rate and also if the ERSPC trial would cooperate with other trials. With an assumed 25% intervention effect in men actually screened and a 20% contamination rate, the trial will reach a power of 0.86 in 2008. With an assumed intervention effect of 40%, the power reaches 0.90 in 2003-2004. Pooling data with those of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary (PLCO) trial early is expected to improve the power to 79% (20% intervention effect) to 92% (40% intervention effect PLCO). Adding more centres with compliance rates lower than 45% decreases the power of the trial. The ERSPC trial has sufficient power to detect a significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between the 2 arms if the true reduction in mortality by screening is 25% or more or if contamination remains limited to 10% if the true effect is 20% or more. If early detection and treatment turns out to have a stronger effect as may be suggested by observational data, the ERSPC trial is likely to conclusively show that within the next 5 years. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11857418     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.10188

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


  15 in total

1.  [PSA 2010--the beginning of a new era in early detection of prostate cancer].

Authors:  C Börgermann; M Sieverding; P Fornara; M Graefen; P Hammerer; A Semjonow; F Schröder; H Rübben
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Germaine Wong; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Screening for prostate cancer: a controversy or fact.

Authors:  S Stavridis; S Saidi; Lj Lekovski; S Dohcev; G Spasovski
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 0.471

4.  Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Emma L Turner; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; J Athene Lane; Sian Noble; Steven E Oliver; Simon Evans; Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Holding; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Peter Brindle; Naomi J Williams; Elizabeth M Hill; Siaw Yein Ng; Jessica Toole; Marta K Tazewell; Laura J Hughes; Charlotte F Davies; Joanna C Thorn; Elizabeth Down; George Davey Smith; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts.

Authors:  Philip C Prorok; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.929

6.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  PSA screening for prostate cancer: why so much controversy?

Authors:  Fernand Labrie
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 3.285

8.  Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?

Authors:  Konstantinos Stamatiou; Andreas Skolarikos; Ioannis Heretis; Vaios Papadimitriou; Alevizos Alevizos; Georgios Ilias; Vasilissa Karanasiou; Anargiros Mariolis; Frank Sofras
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  [Differential therapy of prostate cancer].

Authors:  T Jäger; H Rübben; C Börgermann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 10.  Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)-Based Population Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors:  G Pron
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2015-05-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.