OBJECTIVE: Lead-time in prostate cancer screening was estimated using data from the Finnish randomized, population-based trial. METHODS: Lead-time was defined as the duration of follow-up needed to accrue the same expected number of incident prostate cancer cases in the absence of screening as detected in the initial screening round. Expected numbers were calculated using an age-cohort model. RESULTS: Based on findings among 10,000 men screened in 1996-1997 with 292 screen-detected cancers, lead-time was estimated as approximately 5-7 years, depending on the reference rates used. This corresponds to a mean duration of the detectable preclinical phase (DPCP) of 10-14 years, given that the cancers were detected on average at the midpoint of the DPCP. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that a screening interval substantially longer than the 2 years generally used for mammography screening is unlikely to cause a substantial loss of sensitivity. A long screening interval is further justified in order to diminish the extent of overdiagnosis, until mortality effects can be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: Lead-time in prostate cancer screening was estimated using data from the Finnish randomized, population-based trial. METHODS: Lead-time was defined as the duration of follow-up needed to accrue the same expected number of incident prostate cancer cases in the absence of screening as detected in the initial screening round. Expected numbers were calculated using an age-cohort model. RESULTS: Based on findings among 10,000 men screened in 1996-1997 with 292 screen-detected cancers, lead-time was estimated as approximately 5-7 years, depending on the reference rates used. This corresponds to a mean duration of the detectable preclinical phase (DPCP) of 10-14 years, given that the cancers were detected on average at the midpoint of the DPCP. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that a screening interval substantially longer than the 2 years generally used for mammography screening is unlikely to cause a substantial loss of sensitivity. A long screening interval is further justified in order to diminish the extent of overdiagnosis, until mortality effects can be evaluated.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Nora Pashayan; Stephen W Duffy; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; Richard M Martin; Patricia Harrington; Sara Benlloch; Ali Amin Al Olama; Mitul Shah; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles; Paul D Pharoah Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: N Pashayan; S W Duffy; P Pharoah; D Greenberg; J Donovan; R M Martin; F Hamdy; D E Neal Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David G Goldfarb; Rachel Zeig-Owens; Dana Kristjansson; Jiehui Li; Robert M Brackbill; Mark R Farfel; James E Cone; Janette Yung; Amy R Kahn; Baozhen Qiao; Maria J Schymura; Mayris P Webber; Christopher R Dasaro; Moshe Shapiro; Andrew C Todd; David J Prezant; Paolo Boffetta; Charles B Hall Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 4.402