Literature DB >> 22417251

Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

Fritz H Schröder1, Jonas Hugosson, Monique J Roobol, Teuvo L J Tammela, Stefano Ciatto, Vera Nelen, Maciej Kwiatkowski, Marcos Lujan, Hans Lilja, Marco Zappa, Louis J Denis, Franz Recker, Alvaro Páez, Liisa Määttänen, Chris H Bangma, Gunnar Aus, Sigrid Carlsson, Arnauld Villers, Xavier Rebillard, Theodorus van der Kwast, Paula M Kujala, Bert G Blijenberg, Ulf-Hakan Stenman, Andreas Huber, Kimmo Taari, Matti Hakama, Sue M Moss, Harry J de Koning, Anssi Auvinen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up.
METHODS: The study involved 182,160 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years at entry, with a predefined core age group of 162,388 men 55 to 69 years of age. The trial was conducted in eight European countries. Men who were randomly assigned to the screening group were offered PSA-based screening, whereas those in the control group were not offered such screening. The primary outcome was mortality from prostate cancer.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11 years in the core age group, the relative reduction in the risk of death from prostate cancer in the screening group was 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance. The absolute reduction in mortality in the screening group was 0.10 deaths per 1000 person-years or 1.07 deaths per 1000 men who underwent randomization. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer during follow-up years 10 and 11 was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P=0.003). To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected. There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Analyses after 2 additional years of follow-up consolidated our previous finding that PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22417251      PMCID: PMC6027585          DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  21 in total

1.  Monitoring the ERSPC trial.

Authors:  H J De Koning; T Hakulinen; S M Moss; J Adolfsson; P H Smith; F E Alexander
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  What is the true number needed to screen and treat to save a life with prostate-specific antigen testing?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Edward F Vonesh; E Jeffrey Metter; H Ballentine Carter; Peter H Gann; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Angela B Mariotto; Shu Chen; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies.

Authors:  T A Stamey
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach.

Authors:  D L DeMets; K K Lan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994 Jul 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Michael K Liem; Ida J Korfage; Jan J Lous; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2003-06-20       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Prostate cancer mortality reduction by screening: power and time frame with complete enrollment in the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Michael K Liem; Caroline A Baan; Rob Boer; Fritz H Schröder; Freda E Alexander
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-03-10       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 8.  Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening.

Authors:  C M Rembold
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-01

9.  Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design.

Authors:  R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  406 in total

1.  Assessing treatment benefit with competing risks not affected by the randomized treatment.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; James J Dignam; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Adverse effects of testosterone replacement therapy: an update on the evidence and controversy.

Authors:  Anthony Grech; John Breck; Joel Heidelbaugh
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2014-10

3.  Prostate cancer: 11 years follow-up for ERSPC.

Authors:  Annette Fenner
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  The confusion surrounding prostate cancer screening faced by family physicians.

Authors:  Nathan A Hoag; Alan I So
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Prostate cancer screening: facts, statistics, and interpretation in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force Review.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Andrew J Vickers; Monique Roobol; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hans Lilja; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  A Case-Based Clinical Approach to the Investigation, Management and Screening of Families with BRCA2 Related Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Bradley King; Jana McHugh; Katie Snape
Journal:  Appl Clin Genet       Date:  2021-05-20

8.  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

9.  Efficacy versus effectiveness study design within the European screening trial for prostate cancer: consequences for cancer incidence, overall mortality and cancer-specific mortality.

Authors:  Xiaoye Zhu; Pim J van Leeuwen; Erik Holmberg; Meelan Bul; Sigrid Carlsson; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Kinzya B Grant; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.