OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of testing for prostate cancer and the prevalence and characteristics of the disease in unselected young men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort nested within a randomised controlled trial, with two years of follow-up. SETTING:Eight general practices in a UK city. PARTICIPANTS: 1299 unselected men aged 45-49. INTERVENTION: Prostate biopsies for participants with a prostate specific antigen level of 1.5 ng/ml or more and the possibility of randomisation to three treatments for those with localised prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of testing for prostate specific antigen; positive predictive value of prostate specific antigen; and prevalence of prostate cancer, TNM disease stage, and histological grade (Gleason score). RESULTS:442 of 1299 men agreed to be tested for prostate specific antigen (34%) and 54 (12%) had a raised level. The positive predictive value for prostate specific antigen was 21.3%. Ten cases of prostate cancer were detected (2.3%) with eight having at least two positive results in biopsy cores and three showing perineural invasion. One tumour was of high volume (cT2c), Gleason score 7, with a positive result on digital rectal examination; nine tumours were cT1c, Gleason score 6, and eight had a negative result on digital rectal examination. Five of the nine eligible participants (55%) agreed to be randomised. No biochemical disease progression in the form of a rising prostate specific antigen level occurred in two years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Men younger than 50 will accept testing for prostate cancer but at a much lower rate than older men. Using an age based threshold of 1.5 ng/ml, the prevalence of prostate cancer was similar to that in older men (3.0 ng/ml threshold) and some cancers of potential clinical significance were found. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of testing for prostate cancer and the prevalence and characteristics of the disease in unselected young men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort nested within a randomised controlled trial, with two years of follow-up. SETTING: Eight general practices in a UK city. PARTICIPANTS: 1299 unselected men aged 45-49. INTERVENTION: Prostate biopsies for participants with a prostate specific antigen level of 1.5 ng/ml or more and the possibility of randomisation to three treatments for those with localised prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of testing for prostate specific antigen; positive predictive value of prostate specific antigen; and prevalence of prostate cancer, TNM disease stage, and histological grade (Gleason score). RESULTS: 442 of 1299 men agreed to be tested for prostate specific antigen (34%) and 54 (12%) had a raised level. The positive predictive value for prostate specific antigen was 21.3%. Ten cases of prostate cancer were detected (2.3%) with eight having at least two positive results in biopsy cores and three showing perineural invasion. One tumour was of high volume (cT2c), Gleason score 7, with a positive result on digital rectal examination; nine tumours were cT1c, Gleason score 6, and eight had a negative result on digital rectal examination. Five of the nine eligible participants (55%) agreed to be randomised. No biochemical disease progression in the form of a rising prostate specific antigen level occurred in two years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Men younger than 50 will accept testing for prostate cancer but at a much lower rate than older men. Using an age based threshold of 1.5 ng/ml, the prevalence of prostate cancer was similar to that in older men (3.0 ng/ml threshold) and some cancers of potential clinical significance were found. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.
Authors: J Donovan; F Hamdy; D Neal; T Peters; S Oliver; L Brindle; D Jewell; P Powell; D Gillatt; D Dedman; N Mills; M Smith; S Noble; A Lane Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: C V Smith; J J Bauer; R R Connelly; T Seay; C Kane; J Foley; J B Thrasher; L Kusuda; J W Moul Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Athene Lane; Richard F Harvey; Liam J Murray; Ian M Harvey; Jenny L Donovan; Prakash Nair; Matthias Egger Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2002-06
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Chris M Gonzalez; Kimberly A Roehl; Misop Han; Jo Ann V Antenor; Ronald L Yap; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014