Literature DB >> 23759326

Screening for prostate cancer: results of the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer.

Monique J Roobol1, Ries Kranse, Chris H Bangma, Arno G J L H van Leenders, Bert G Blijenberg, Ron H N van Schaik, Wim J Kirkels, Suzie J Otto, Theo H van der Kwast, Harry J de Koning, Fritz H Schröder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized trials on the effects of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) on disease-specific mortality accumulates slowly with increasing follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: To assess data on PCa-specific mortality in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized controlled trial with randomization after signed, written informed consent (efficacy trial). In the period 1993-1999, a total of 42 376 men aged 54-74 yr were randomized to a screening arm (S-arm) (n = 21 210 with screening every 4 yr, applying a total prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level cut-off ≥ 3.0 ng/ml as biopsy indication) or a control arm (C-arm) (n = 21 166; no intervention). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Number of PCas detected per arm depicted by predefined time periods and prognostic groups. PCa-specific mortality analyses using Poisson regression in age group 55-74 yr at randomization and separately in the predefined age group of 55-69 yr. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 yr, 19 765 men (94.2%) were screened at least once and 2674 PCas were detected (of which 561 [21.0%] were interval PCas). In the C-arm, 1430 PCas were detected, resulting in an excess incidence of 59 PCas per 1000 men randomized (61 PCas per 1000 in age group 55-69 yr). Thirty-two percent of all men randomized have died. PCa-specific mortality relative-risk (RR) reductions of 20.0% overall (age: 55-74 yr; p = 0.042) and 31.6% (age: 55-69 yr; p = 0.004) were found. A 14.1% increase was found in men aged 70-74 yr (not statistically significant). Absolute PCa mortality was 1.8 per 1000 men randomized (2.6 per 1000 men randomized in age group 55-69 yr). The number needed to invite and number needed to manage were 565 and 33, respectively, for age group 55-74 yr, and 392 and 24, respectively, for age group 65-69 yr. Given the slow natural history of the disease, follow-up might be too short.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic PSA-based screening reduced PCa-specific mortality by 32% in the age range of 55-69 yr. The roughly twofold higher incidence in the S-arm underlines the importance of tools to better identify those men who would benefit from screening.
Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Mortality; PSA; Prostate cancer; Screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23759326     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.030

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


  36 in total

1.  The importance of active surveillance, and immediate re-biopsy in low-risk prostate cancer: The largest series from Turkey.

Authors:  Göksel Bayar; Kaya Horasanlı; Hüseyin Acinikli; Orhan Tanrıverdi; Ayhan Dalkılıç; Serdar Arısan
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-09

2.  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

3.  Prostate cancer: Rescreening policies and risk calculators.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Peter T Scardino; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ethan Basch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

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

6. 

Authors:  Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Competing demands and opportunities in primary care.

Authors:  Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  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

9.  Eighteen-year follow-up of the Göteborg Randomized Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial: effect of sociodemographic variables on participation, prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  Jonas Hugosson; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Sigrid V Carlsson; Gunnar Aus; Anna Grenabo Bergdahl; Pär Lodding; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Johan Stranne; Erik Holmberg; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 1.612

10.  DNA integrity as biomarker in pancreatic cyst fluid.

Authors:  Wesley K Utomo; Vincent T Janmaat; Auke P Verhaar; Jérôme Cros; Philippe Lévy; Philippe Ruszniewski; Mirella S Vredenbregt-van den Berg; Guido Jenster; Marco J Bruno; Henri Braat; Gwenny M Fuhler; Maikel P Peppelenbosch
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 6.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.