Literature DB >> 12704675

Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Suzie J Otto1, Ingrid W van der Cruijsen, Michael K Liem, Ida J Korfage, Jan J Lous, Fritz H Schröder, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

The extent of effective prostate-specific antigen (PSA) contamination in the Rotterdam section of the ongoing European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial was evaluated and defined as when opportunistic PSA testing of >/= 3.0 ng/ml was followed by biopsy, similar to the regular procedure within the trial. Records of participants aged 55-74 years at entry were linked to the regional database of the general practitioner (GP) laboratory to obtain PSA tests requested by GPs in the period 1 July 1997 to 31 May 2000 (2.9 years), and to the national pathology database to quantify the number of biopsies. All men randomized were included, only those with prostate cancer screen-detected or clinically diagnosed before July 1997 were omitted from the analyses. 2,895 out of the 14,349 men (20.2%) in the control arm and 1,981 out of the 14,052 men (14.1%) in the screening arm were PSA-tested, at an average annual rate of 73 and 52 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. These rates were higher than those recorded at the national and regional levels, 33 and 38 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Opportunistic PSA testing in the control arm reached a peak within the first months of randomization, after which it decreased to around 70 per 1,000 person-years. An opposite pattern was observed in the screening arm, where participants already had received the scheduled screening within the trial. The proportion of men in the control arm with PSA >/= 3.0 ng/ml followed by biopsy and prostate cancer was 7-8% and 3%, respectively (3% and 0.4-0.6% in the screening arm), over the whole study period. Over a 4-year rescreening interval, the average PSA and effective contamination amount were approximately 28% and 10%, respectively. PSA testing in the control arm in the Rotterdam ERSPC section is high, but was not followed by a substantial increase in prostate biopsies. Although the reasons for ordering PSA test or indicating biopsy are unknown, effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam ERSPC section is low and not likely to jeopardize the power of the trial. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12704675     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.11074

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


  20 in total

1.  Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Time to Change the Dominant Forces on the Pendulum.

Authors:  Jonathan E Shoag; Peter N Schlegel; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Recommandations de l'Association des urologues du Canada sur le dépistage et le diagnostic précoce du cancer de la prostate.

Authors:  Ricardo A Rendon; Ross J Mason; Karim Marzouk; Antonio Finelli; Fred Saad; Alan So; Phillipe Violette; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  The Impact of Design and Performance in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Differences Between ERSPC Centers.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jan Adolfsson; Anssi Auvinen; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  Risk-based prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Xiaoye Zhu; Peter C Albertsen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Efficacy versus effectiveness study design within the European screening trial for prostate cancer: consequences for cancer incidence, overall mortality and cancer-specific mortality.

Authors:  Xiaoye Zhu; Pim J van Leeuwen; Erik Holmberg; Meelan Bul; Sigrid Carlsson; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Algorithms, nomograms and the detection of indolent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  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

10.  Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  E A M Heijnsdijk; A der Kinderen; E M Wever; G Draisma; M J Roobol; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.