Literature DB >> 17257742

Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening.

Renske Postma1, Fritz H Schröder, Geert J L H van Leenders, Robert F Hoedemaeker, Andre N Vis, Monique J Roobol, Theodorus H van der Kwast.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the features, rates, and characteristics of prostate cancer detected during two subsequent screening rounds.
METHODS: Data were retrieved from the database of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), section Rotterdam. Men, ages 55-74 yr were screened with a 4-yr interval. Different biopsy indications were used in the first and second screens in the PSA range <4.0 ng/ml. Clinical features and a total of 1548 sextant biopsies were recorded for Gleason score and tumour extent, and 550 radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for Gleason score, pathologic T category, and tumour volume.
RESULTS: Clinical stage, Gleason score, involvement of biopsy by tumour, and PSA levels were more favourable in patients of the second round compared with those of the first round. The number of men chosen for watchful waiting increased from 98 (10%) to 123 (22%) in the second round (p<0.0001). In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, median tumour volume in the first and second screening round was 0.65 and 0.45 ml (p=0.001). Minimal cancer (cancer <0.5 ml, organ-confined, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5) was found in 122 (31.6%) in the first and 60 (42.6%) in the second screening round (p=0.03). The 5-yr PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy was 87%.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the 4-yr interval an important shift of all prognostic factors occurred in favour of round 2. In those men who underwent radical prostatectomy, 42.6% fulfilled the criteria of minimal cancer. These data suggest that overdiagnosis increases with repeat screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17257742     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  21 in total

1.  Historical prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes from a single institution.

Authors:  Deanna S Cross; Mark Ritter; Douglas J Reding
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2012-04-25

Review 2.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

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

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.  Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study.

Authors:  Anita V Mitra; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Yolanda Barbachano; Elizabeth C Page; C S Foster; C Jameson; G Mitchell; G J Lindeman; A Stapleton; G Suthers; D G Evans; D Cruger; I Blanco; C Mercer; J Kirk; L Maehle; S Hodgson; L Walker; L Izatt; F Douglas; K Tucker; H Dorkins; V Clowes; A Male; A Donaldson; C Brewer; R Doherty; B Bulman; P J Osther; M Salinas; D Eccles; K Axcrona; I Jobson; B Newcombe; C Cybulski; W S Rubinstein; S Buys; S Townshend; E Friedman; S Domchek; T Ramon Y Cajal; A Spigelman; S H Teo; N Nicolai; N Aaronson; A Ardern-Jones; C Bangma; D Dearnaley; J Eyfjord; A Falconer; H Grönberg; F Hamdy; O Johannsson; V Khoo; Z Kote-Jarai; H Lilja; J Lubinski; J Melia; C Moynihan; S Peock; G Rennert; F Schröder; P Sibley; M Suri; P Wilson; Y J Bignon; S Strom; M Tischkowitz; A Liljegren; D Ilencikova; A Abele; K Kyriacou; C van Asperen; L Kiemeney; D F Easton; Rosalind A Eeles
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Prostate cancer: estimating the benefits of PSA screening.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Characteristics and outcome of prostate cancer with PSA <4 ng/ml at diagnosis: a population-based study.

Authors:  M Bonet; A Merglen; G Fioretta; E Rapiti; I Neyroud-Caspar; R Zanetti; R Miralbell; C Bouchardy
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.405

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.