Literature DB >> 17728218

Interval cancers in prostate cancer screening: comparing 2- and 4-year screening intervals in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Gothenburg and Rotterdam.

Monique J Roobol1, Anna Grenabo, Fritz H Schröder, Jonas Hugosson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially since it became common practice to screen asymptomatic men for the disease. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 to determine how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening affects prostate cancer mortality. Variations in the screening algorithm, such as the interval between screening rounds, likely influence the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of the screened population.
METHODS: We compared the number and characteristics of interval cancers, defined as those diagnosed during the screening interval but not detected by screening, in men in the screening arm of the ERSPC who were aged 55-65 years at the time of the first screening and were participating through two centers of the ERSPC: Gothenburg (2-year screening interval, n = 4202) and Rotterdam (4-year screening interval, n = 13301). All participants who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through December 31, 2005, but at most 10 years after the initial screening were ascertained by linkage with the national cancer registries. A potentially life-threatening (aggressive) interval cancer was defined as one with at least one of the following characteristics at diagnosis: stage M1 or N1, plasma PSA concentration greater than 20.0 ng/mL, or Gleason score greater than 7. We used Mantel Cox regression to assess differences between rates of interval cancers and aggressive interval cancers at the two centers. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of all prostate cancers in Rotterdam versus Gothenburg was 1118 (8.41%) versus 552 (13.14%) (P<.001), the cumulative incidence of interval cancer was 57 (0.43%) versus 31 (0.74%) (P = .51), and the cumulative incidence of aggressive interval cancer was 15 (0.11%) versus 5 (0.12%) (P = .72).
CONCLUSION: The rate of interval cancer, especially aggressive interval cancer, was low in this study. The 2-year screening interval had higher detection rates than the 4-year interval but did not lead to lower rates of interval and aggressive interval prostate cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17728218     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  13 in total

1.  Trends in prostate specific antigen testing in Ireland: lessons from a country without guidelines.

Authors:  F J Drummond; A-E Carsin; L Sharp; H Comber
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  [Transrectal prostate biopsy: effective anesthesia, complications, and influence on clinical outcome after radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  G Müller; H Borrusch; I Knop; U Otto
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Impact of Prostatic-specific Antigen Threshold and Screening Interval in Prostate Cancer Screening Outcomes: Comparing the Swedish and Finnish European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Centres.

Authors:  Lasse Saarimäki; Jonas Hugosson; Teuvo L Tammela; Sigrid Carlsson; Kirsi Talala; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2017-08-10

4.  The impact of PSA testing frequency on prostate cancer incidence and treatment in older men.

Authors:  Y-H Shao; P C Albertsen; W Shih; C B Roberts; G L Lu-Yao
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 5.  Randomized controlled screening trials for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen: a tale of contrasts.

Authors:  Kyle O Rove; E David Crawford
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Prostate cancer screening: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Seth A Strope; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  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

Review 8.  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

9.  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 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.