Literature DB >> 28762124

A randomized trial of early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (ProScreen): study design and rationale.

Anssi Auvinen1, Antti Rannikko2, Kimmo Taari2, Paula Kujala3, Tuomas Mirtti4, Anu Kenttämies5, Irina Rinta-Kiikka6, Terho Lehtimäki7, Niku Oksala8, Kim Pettersson9, Teuvo L Tammela10.   

Abstract

The current evidence of PSA-based prostate cancer screening shows a reduction in cause-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis. Recently, new developments in detection of clinically relevant prostate cancer include multiple kallikreins as biomarkers besides PSA, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for biopsy decision. They offer opportunities for improving the outcomes in screening, particularly reduction in overdiagnosis and higher specificity for potentially lethal cancer. A population-based randomized screening trial will be started, with 67,000 men aged 55-67 years at entry. A quarter of the men will be allocated to the intervention arm, and invited to screening. The control arm will receive no intervention. All men in the screening arm will be offered a serum PSA determination. Those with PSA of 3 ng/ml or higher will have an additional multi-kallikrein panel and those with indications of increased risk of clinically relevant prostate cancer will undergo mpMRI. Men with a malignancy-suspect finding in MRI are referred to targeted biopsies. Screening interval is 6 years for men with baseline PSA < 1.5 ng/ml, 4 years with PSA 1.5-3.0 and 2 years if initial PSA > 3. The main outcome of the trial is prostate cancer mortality, with analysis at 10 and 15 years. The statistical power is sufficient for detecting a 28% reduction at 10 years and 22% at 15 years. The proposed study has the potential to provide the evidence to justify screening as a public health policy if mortality benefit can be sustained with substantially reduced overdiagnosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mortality; Prostate neoplasm; Randomized trial; Screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28762124     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-017-0292-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  37 in total

1.  Stage-specific mortality and survival trends of prostate cancer patients in Finland before and after introduction of PSA.

Authors:  Heikki A Seikkula; Antti J Kaipia; Matti E Rantanen; Janne M Pitkäniemi; Nea K Malila; Peter J Boström
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 4.089

Review 2.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Leslie Mallinger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chunhuan Lao; Charis Brown; Paul Rouse; Richard Edlin; Ross Lawrenson
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.404

4.  Estimate of Opportunistic Prostate Specific Antigen Testing in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Dimitri Pogodin-Hannolainen; Kimmo Kemppainen; Kirsi Talala; Jani Raitanen; Kimmo Taari; Paula Kujala; Teuvo L J Tammela; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Alberto Briganti; Pieter De Visschere; Mark Emberton; Gianluca Giannarini; Alex Kirkham; Samir S Taneja; Harriet Thoeny; Geert Villeirs; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  M A Haider; X Yao; A Loblaw; A Finelli
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 4.126

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Trends in prostate cancer in elderly in Denmark, 1980-2012.

Authors:  Mads Hvid Poulsen; Lars Dysager; Oke Gerke; Lars Lund
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 4.089

Review 10.  The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer.

Authors:  Valerie Beral; Maggie Alexander; Stephen Duffy; Ian O Ellis; Rosalind Given-Wilson; Lars Holmberg; Sue M Moss; Amanda Ramirez; Malcolm W R Reed; Caroline Rubin; Patsy Whelehan; Robin Wilson; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  12 in total

1.  Reconsidering the Trade-offs of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan E Shoag; Yaw A Nyame; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Jim C Hu
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in the UK: A Decision Model Analysis Based on the CAP Trial.

Authors:  Sabina Sanghera; Richard M Martin; Emma L Turner; Howard Thom; Edna Keeney; Roman Gulati; Fredrik Wiklund; Eleanor I Walsh; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie Hamdy; David E Neal; J Athene Lane; Mark S Clements
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 3.  Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Bernd Joachim Krause; Viktoria Schütz; David Bonekamp; Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 8.251

4.  Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Antti Rannikko; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sebastiaan Remmers; Henk G van der Poel; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

Review 5.  Prostate cancer screening: what can we learn from randomised trials?

Authors:  Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

6.  Screening for prostate cancer: are organized screening programs necessary?

Authors:  Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

7.  Expected impact of MRI-related interreader variability on ProScreen prostate cancer screening trial: a pre-trial validation study.

Authors:  Ronja Hietikko; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Anu Kenttämies; Johanna Ronkainen; Kirsty Ijäs; Kati Lind; Suvi Marjasuo; Juha Oksala; Outi Oksanen; Tuomas Saarinen; Ritja Savolainen; Kimmo Taari; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuomas Mirtti; Kari Natunen; Anssi Auvinen; Antti Rannikko
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 3.909

8.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Edna Keeney; Howard Thom; Emma Turner; Richard M Martin; Josie Morley; Sabina Sanghera
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-09-22       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Remmers; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Identification and Validation of Leucine-rich α-2-glycoprotein 1 as a Noninvasive Biomarker for Improved Precision in Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Ingrid J Guldvik; Verena Zuber; Peder R Braadland; Helene H Grytli; Håkon Ramberg; Wolfgang Lilleby; Bernd Thiede; Manuela Zucknick; Fahri Saatcioglu; Randi Gislefoss; Rune Kvåle; Anne George; Henrik Grönberg; Fredrik Wiklund; David E Neal; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Kristin A Taskén; Ian G Mills
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2020-10-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.