BACKGROUND:Lead-time is defined as the time by which screening advances the diagnosis compared with absence of screening. A sufficiently long lead-time needs to be achieved so that cancer can be detected while still curable. A very short lead-time may indicate poor sensitivity of the screening test, while a very long lead-time suggests overdiagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the first screening round, a total of 56,294 men aged 55-74 years were screened with serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) in five countries of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with an overall detection rate (prevalence) of 2.8% (1972 prostate cancers). Prostate cancer incidence among 92,142 men randomly allocated to the control arm of the trial was also assessed. Lead-time was estimated as the time required to accumulate a similar cumulative risk of prostate cancer in the control arm to the detection rate in the intervention arm, i.e. from the ratio of detection rate (prevalence of screen-detected cases) and expected incidence (cumulative risk). RESULTS: Using a serum PSA cut-off of 4 ng/ml, the mean lead-time in the whole study population was estimated as 6.8 years (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.9-8.4). It was 8 years in The Netherlands, 6 in Sweden and Finland, 5 in Italy and 4 in Belgium. The mean lead-time was similar, 6-7 years, at ages 50-64 years, but close to 8 years among men aged 65-74 years. A lower PSA cut-off level of 3 ng/ml used in Sweden and The Netherlands prolonged the mean lead-time by approximately 1 year. Lead-time based on advanced prostate cancer only was slightly shorter, mean 5.3 years (95% CI 4.6-6.0). The lead-time for the second screening round was slightly shorter than that for the first (5.9, 95% CI 5.4-6.4), reflecting a similar relation between detection rate and control group incidence. CONCLUSION: The lead-time for prostate cancer found in ERSPC substantially exceeded that found for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. One round of prostate cancer screening can advance clinical diagnosis by 4-8 years. Overdiagnosis or detection of non-progressive tumours may contribute substantially to the lead-time.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Lead-time is defined as the time by which screening advances the diagnosis compared with absence of screening. A sufficiently long lead-time needs to be achieved so that cancer can be detected while still curable. A very short lead-time may indicate poor sensitivity of the screening test, while a very long lead-time suggests overdiagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the first screening round, a total of 56,294 men aged 55-74 years were screened with serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) in five countries of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with an overall detection rate (prevalence) of 2.8% (1972 prostate cancers). Prostate cancer incidence among 92,142 men randomly allocated to the control arm of the trial was also assessed. Lead-time was estimated as the time required to accumulate a similar cumulative risk of prostate cancer in the control arm to the detection rate in the intervention arm, i.e. from the ratio of detection rate (prevalence of screen-detected cases) and expected incidence (cumulative risk). RESULTS: Using a serum PSA cut-off of 4 ng/ml, the mean lead-time in the whole study population was estimated as 6.8 years (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.9-8.4). It was 8 years in The Netherlands, 6 in Sweden and Finland, 5 in Italy and 4 in Belgium. The mean lead-time was similar, 6-7 years, at ages 50-64 years, but close to 8 years among men aged 65-74 years. A lower PSA cut-off level of 3 ng/ml used in Sweden and The Netherlands prolonged the mean lead-time by approximately 1 year. Lead-time based on advanced prostate cancer only was slightly shorter, mean 5.3 years (95% CI 4.6-6.0). The lead-time for the second screening round was slightly shorter than that for the first (5.9, 95% CI 5.4-6.4), reflecting a similar relation between detection rate and control group incidence. CONCLUSION: The lead-time for prostate cancer found in ERSPC substantially exceeded that found for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. One round of prostate cancer screening can advance clinical diagnosis by 4-8 years. Overdiagnosis or detection of non-progressive tumours may contribute substantially to the lead-time.
Authors: Lara G Sigurdardottir; Unnur A Valdimarsdottir; Lorelei A Mucci; Katja Fall; Jennifer R Rider; Eva Schernhammer; Charles A Czeisler; Lenore Launer; Tamara Harris; Meir J Stampfer; Vilmundur Gudnason; Steven W Lockley Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Melissa Assel; Anders Dahlin; David Ulmert; Anders Bergh; Pär Stattin; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kathryn L Penney; Meir J Stampfer; Jaquelyn L Jahn; Jennifer A Sinnott; Richard Flavin; Jennifer R Rider; Stephen Finn; Edward Giovannucci; Howard D Sesso; Massimo Loda; Lorelei A Mucci; Michelangelo Fiorentino Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Timothy J Key; Naomi E Allen; Ruth C Travis; Paul N Appleby; Richard M Martin; Jeff M P Holly; Demetrius Albanes; Amanda Black; H B As Bueno-de-Mesquita; June M Chan; Chu Chen; Maria-Dolores Chirlaque; Michael B Cook; Mélanie Deschasaux; Jenny L Donovan; Luigi Ferrucci; Pilar Galan; Graham G Giles; Edward L Giovannucci; Marc J Gunter; Laurel A Habel; Freddie C Hamdy; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Serge Hercberg; Robert N Hoover; Joseph A M J L Janssen; Rudolf Kaaks; Tatsuhiko Kubo; Loic Le Marchand; E Jeffrey Metter; Kazuya Mikami; Joan K Morris; David E Neal; Marian L Neuhouser; Kotaro Ozasa; Domenico Palli; Elizabeth A Platz; Michael Pollak; Alison J Price; Monique J Roobol; Catherine Schaefer; Jeannette M Schenk; Gianluca Severi; Meir J Stampfer; Pär Stattin; Akiko Tamakoshi; Catherine M Tangen; Mathilde Touvier; Nicholas J Wald; Noel S Weiss; Regina G Ziegler Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Nora Pashayan; Stephen W Duffy; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; Richard M Martin; Patricia Harrington; Sara Benlloch; Ali Amin Al Olama; Mitul Shah; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles; Paul D Pharoah Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Timothy J Key; Paul N Appleby; Ruth C Travis; Demetrius Albanes; Anthony J Alberg; Aurelio Barricarte; Amanda Black; Heiner Boeing; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; June M Chan; Chu Chen; Michael B Cook; Jenny L Donovan; Pilar Galan; Rebecca Gilbert; Graham G Giles; Edward Giovannucci; Gary E Goodman; Phyllis J Goodman; Marc J Gunter; Freddie C Hamdy; Markku Heliövaara; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Brian E Henderson; Serge Hercberg; Judy Hoffman-Bolton; Robert N Hoover; Mattias Johansson; Kay-Tee Khaw; Irena B King; Paul Knekt; Laurence N Kolonel; Loic Le Marchand; Satu Männistö; Richard M Martin; Haakon E Meyer; Alison M Mondul; Kristin A Moy; David E Neal; Marian L Neuhouser; Domenico Palli; Elizabeth A Platz; Camille Pouchieu; Harri Rissanen; Jeannette M Schenk; Gianluca Severi; Meir J Stampfer; Anne Tjønneland; Mathilde Touvier; Antonia Trichopoulou; Stephanie J Weinstein; Regina G Ziegler; Cindy Ke Zhou; Naomi E Allen Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 7.045