Literature DB >> 15073097

Second round results of the Finnish population-based prostate cancer screening trial.

Tuukka Mäkinen1, Teuvo L J Tammela, Ulf-Håkan Stenman, Liisa Määttänen, Jussi Aro, Harri Juusela, Paula Martikainen, Matti Hakama, Anssi Auvinen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Large randomized trials provide the only valid means of quantifying the benefits and drawbacks of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, but the follow-up of ongoing studies is still too short to allow evaluation of mortality. We report here the intermediate indicators of screening efficacy from the second round of the Finnish trial. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: The Finnish trial, with approximately 80,000 men in the target population, is the largest component in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. The first round was completed in 1996-1999. Each year 8,000 men 55-67 years of age were randomly assigned to the screening arm, and the rest formed the control arm. Men randomized to the screening arm in 1996 were reinvited 4 years later, in 2000, and PSA was determined.
RESULTS: Of the eligible 6415 men, 4407 (69%) eventually participated in the second round of screening. Of the first-round participants, up to 84% (3833 of 4556) attended rescreening. A total of 461 screenees (10.5%) had PSA levels of > or = 4 microg/liter. Altogether, 97 cancers were found, yielding an overall detection rate of 2.2% (97 of 4407). Seventy-nine cases were found among the 3833 second-time screenees (detection rate 2.1%) and 18 in those 574 men (3.1%) who had not participated previously. A PSA of > or = 4 microg/liter, but negative biopsy in the first screening round was associated with an up to 9-fold risk of cancer in rescreening relative to those with lower PSA levels at baseline. Ninety-one (94%) of all of the detected cancers were clinically localized.
CONCLUSIONS: As surrogate measures of an effective screening program, both compliance as well as the overall and advanced prostate cancer detection rates remained acceptable. Men defined as screen-positive but with a negative confirmation of cancer at prevalence screen formed a high-risk group at rescreening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15073097     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-03-0338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  6 in total

1.  [Epidemiology of prostate cancer].

Authors:  N Becker
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  A genetic variant near GATA3 implicated in inherited susceptibility and etiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

Authors:  Rong Na; Brian T Helfand; Haitao Chen; Carly A Conran; Susan E Crawford; Simon W Hayward; Teuvo L J Tammela; Judy Hoffman-Bolton; Siqun L Zheng; Patrick C Walsh; Johanna Schleutker; Elizabeth A Platz; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.104

3.  A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival.

Authors:  C Parker; D Muston; J Melia; S Moss; D Dearnaley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 4.  Prostate-specific antigen-based population screening for prostate cancer: current status in Japan and future perspective in Asia.

Authors:  Yasuhide Kitagawa; Mikio Namiki
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.285

5.  Decreasing trend in prostate cancer with high serum prostate-specific antigen levels detected at first prostate-specific antigen-based population screening in Japan.

Authors:  Yasuhide Kitagawa; Kazuaki Machioka; Hiroshi Yaegashi; Kazufumi Nakashima; Mitsuo Ofude; Kouji Izumi; Satoru Ueno; Yoshifumi Kadono; Hiroyuki Konaka; Atsushi Mizokami; Mikio Namiki
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.285

6.  Simulation model of disease incidence driven by diagnostic activity.

Authors:  Marcus Westerberg; Rolf Larsson; Lars Holmberg; Pär Stattin; Hans Garmo
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.373

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.