Sigrid Carlsson1, Melissa Assel2, David Ulmert3, Axel Gerdtsson4, Jonas Hugosson5, Andrew Vickers6, Hans Lilja7. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Sweden. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 3. Molecular Pharmacology and Chemistry Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, NY, USA; Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. 5. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Göteborg, Sweden; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. Electronic address: vickersa@mskcc.org. 7. Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; Departments of Laboratory Medicine, Surgery (Urology Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: liljah@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current prostate cancer screening guidelines conflict with respect to the age at which to initiate screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening versus zero screening, startingat age 50-54 yr, on prostate cancer mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a population-based cohort study comparing 3479 men aged 50 yr through 54 yr randomized to PSA-screening in the Göteborg population-based prostate cancer screening trial, initiated in 1995, versus 4060 unscreened men aged 51-55 yr providing cryopreserved blood in the population-based Malmö Preventive Project in the pre-PSA era, during 1982-1985. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cumulative incidence and incidence rate ratios of prostate cancer diagnosis, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 17 yr, regular PSA-screening in Göteborg of men in their early 50s carried a more than two-fold higher risk of prostate cancer diagnosis compared with the unscreened men in Malmö (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18, 3.02), but resulted in a substantial decrease in the risk of metastases (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22, 0.79) and prostate cancer death (IRR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11, 0.67). There were 57 fewer prostate cancer deaths per 10000 men (95% CI 22, 92) in the screened group. At 17 yr, the number needed to invite to PSA-screening and the number needed to diagnose to prevent one prostate cancer death was 176 and 16, respectively. The study is limited by lack of treatment information and the comparison of the two different birth cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:PSA screening for prostate cancer can decrease prostate cancer mortality among men aged 50-54 yr, with the number needed to invite and number needed to detect to prevent one prostate cancer death comparable to those previously reported from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer for men aged 55-69 yr, at a similar follow-up. Guideline groups could consider whether guidelines for PSA screening should recommend starting no later than at ages 50-54 yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: Guideline recommendations about the age to start prostate-specific antigen screening could be discussed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current prostate cancer screening guidelines conflict with respect to the age at which to initiate screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening versus zero screening, starting at age 50-54 yr, on prostate cancer mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a population-based cohort study comparing 3479 men aged 50 yr through 54 yr randomized to PSA-screening in the Göteborg population-based prostate cancer screening trial, initiated in 1995, versus 4060 unscreened men aged 51-55 yr providing cryopreserved blood in the population-based Malmö Preventive Project in the pre-PSA era, during 1982-1985. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cumulative incidence and incidence rate ratios of prostate cancer diagnosis, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 17 yr, regular PSA-screening in Göteborg of men in their early 50s carried a more than two-fold higher risk of prostate cancer diagnosis compared with the unscreened men in Malmö (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18, 3.02), but resulted in a substantial decrease in the risk of metastases (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22, 0.79) and prostate cancer death (IRR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11, 0.67). There were 57 fewer prostate cancer deaths per 10000 men (95% CI 22, 92) in the screened group. At 17 yr, the number needed to invite to PSA-screening and the number needed to diagnose to prevent one prostate cancer death was 176 and 16, respectively. The study is limited by lack of treatment information and the comparison of the two different birth cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:PSA screening for prostate cancer can decrease prostate cancer mortality among men aged 50-54 yr, with the number needed to invite and number needed to detect to prevent one prostate cancer death comparable to those previously reported from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer for men aged 55-69 yr, at a similar follow-up. Guideline groups could consider whether guidelines for PSA screening should recommend starting no later than at ages 50-54 yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: Guideline recommendations about the age to start prostate-specific antigen screening could be discussed.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David Ulmert; Charlotte Becker; Jan-Ake Nilsson; Timo Piironen; Thomas Björk; Jonas Hugosson; Göran Berglund; Hans Lilja Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-12-29 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: David Ulmert; Angel M Serio; Matthew F O'Brien; Charlotte Becker; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Thomas Björk; Göran Berglund; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Thomas Björk; Jonas Manjer; Peter M Nilsson; Anders Dahlin; Anders Bjartell; Peter T Scardino; David Ulmert; Hans Lilja Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-09-14
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; David Ulmert; Daniel D Sjoberg; Caroline J Bennette; Thomas Björk; Axel Gerdtsson; Jonas Manjer; Peter M Nilsson; Anders Dahlin; Anders Bjartell; Peter T Scardino; Hans Lilja Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-04-15
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
Authors: Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Emma L Turner; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; J Athene Lane; Sian Noble; Steven E Oliver; Simon Evans; Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Holding; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Peter Brindle; Naomi J Williams; Elizabeth M Hill; Siaw Yein Ng; Jessica Toole; Marta K Tazewell; Laura J Hughes; Charlotte F Davies; Joanna C Thorn; Elizabeth Down; George Davey Smith; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272