Literature DB >> 22264679

The impact of interscreening interval and age on prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen.

Grace Hui-Min Wu1, Anssi Auvinen, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Matti Hakama, Teuvo L Tammela, Ulf-Håkan Stenman, Paula Kujala, Mirja Ruutu, Hsiu-Hsi Chen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has used serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) since the early 1990s. However, the efficacy could be affected by screening interval, age ranges of screening, attendance, and contamination of the control group in randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of the above-mentioned factors on screening efficacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Parameters pertaining to the natural history of PCa and sensitivity were estimated using data from the Finnish quadrennial screening program starting at 55 yr of age and terminating at 71 yr of age and comprising 80 458 men (32 000 in the screening arm and 48 458 in the control arm). We performed Markov decision analyses for different screening policies with a simulated 25-yr follow-up. INTERVENTION: PSA screening. MEASUREMENTS: The impact of different interscreening intervals and target age ranges on advanced PCa (stage III or worse) and PCa mortality was assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With 65% attendance and 20% contamination, as in the Finnish trial, screening would result in an 11.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1-13.3%) reduction in advanced cancers and a 7.3% (95% CI, 5.3-9.7%) reduction in PCa death, with corresponding absolute risk difference of 2.6% (95% CI, 1.9-3.5%) and 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4-2.2%), respectively. Numbers needed to screen were 385 to prevent one case of advanced PCa and 556 to prevent one PCa death at 25 yr. Those figures remained similar from 12 yr onwards. Reduction in advanced PCa increased to 40% with annual screening and to 24% with biennial screening. When the age at screening initiation was increased by 5 yr, the benefit was reduced by 9% with annual screening and by 3% with biennial screening.
CONCLUSIONS: We predicted the impact of basic screening characteristics on the benefit of the program. The screening interval (1-4 yr) had a greater impact on mortality reduction than did the age at start of screening (55-65 yr). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN49127736.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22264679     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.008

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


  11 in total

1.  Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  What explains the differences between centres in the European screening trial? A simulation study.

Authors:  Jaakko Nevalainen; Ulf-Håkan Stenman; Teuvo L Tammela; Monique Roobol; Sigrid Carlsson; Kirsi Talala; Fritz H Schröder; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Insights from the PLCO trial about prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Peter C Albertsen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Prostate cancer: modeling the outcomes of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Sigrid Carlsson; R Scott Braithwaite
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

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

7.  A System Dynamics Model of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Anton Palma; David W Lounsbury; Nicolas F Schlecht; Ilir Agalliu
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 8.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Current trends in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence.

Authors:  Joon Chul Kim; Kang Jun Cho
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-08-16

Review 10.  Screening Coverage Needed to Reduce Mortality from Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ahmad K Rahal; Robert G Badgett; Richard M Hoffman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.