Literature DB >> 27510947

Design-corrected variation by centre in mortality reduction in the ERSPC randomised prostate cancer screening trial.

Matti Hakama1, Sue M Moss2, Ulf-Hakan Stenman3, Monique J Roobol4, Marco Zappa5, Sigrid Carlsson6,7, Marco Randazzo8,9, Vera Nelen10, Jonas Hugosson6.   

Abstract

Objectives To calculate design-corrected estimates of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality by centre in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Setting The ERSPC has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men invited to screening with follow-up truncated at 13 years. Centres either used pre-consent randomisation (effectiveness design) or post-consent randomisation (efficacy design). Methods In six centres (three effectiveness design, three efficacy design) with follow-up until the end of 2010, or maximum 13 years, the effect of screening was estimated as both effectiveness (mortality reduction in the target population) and efficacy (reduction in those actually screened). Results The overall crude prostate cancer mortality risk ratio in the intervention arm vs control arm for the six centres was 0.79 ranging from a 14% increase to a 38% reduction. The risk ratio was 0.85 in centres with effectiveness design and 0.73 in those with efficacy design. After correcting for design, overall efficacy was 27%, 24% in pre-consent and 29% in post-consent centres, ranging between a 12% increase and a 52% reduction. Conclusion The estimated overall effect of screening in attenders (efficacy) was a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years' follow-up. The variation in efficacy between centres was greater than the range in risk ratio without correction for design. The centre-specific variation in the mortality reduction could not be accounted for by the randomisation method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen; screening; study design

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27510947      PMCID: PMC5299065          DOI: 10.1177/0969141316652174

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  12 in total

1.  Prostate cancer screening: biases and the need for consensus.

Authors:  Otis W Brawley
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  J Cuzick; R Edwards; N Segnan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Erik Holmberg; Hans Lilja; Johan Stranne; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 20.096

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

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; 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
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Elisabeth M Wever; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeffrey Katcher; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  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

7.  Prostate-specific antigen screening trials and prostate cancer deaths: the androgen deprivation connection.

Authors:  Ian E Haines; George L Gabor Miklos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Pamela M Marcus; Sheryl L Ogden; Lisa H Gren; Jeffery C Childs; Shannon M Pretzel; Lois E Lamerato; Kayo Walsh; Heather M Rozjabek; Jerome Mabie; Brett Thomas; Tom Riley
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 10.  Is FOB screening really the answer for lowering mortality in colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Peter Boyle; Marc Buyse; Harry Bleiberg
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2003
View more
  1 in total

1.  The Impact of Design and Performance in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Differences Between ERSPC Centers.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jan Adolfsson; Anssi Auvinen; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 20.096

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.