Literature DB >> 9861205

Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection.

M McGregor1, J A Hanley, J F Boivin, R G McLean.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trial of prostate cancer screening has been reported and none is likely to be completed in the near future. In the absence of direct evidence, the decision to screen must therefore be based on estimates of benefits and risks. The main risk of screening is overdetection--the detection of cancer that, if left untreated, would not cause death. In this study the authors estimate the level of overdetection that might result from annual screening of men aged 50-70.
METHODS: The annual rate of lethal screen-detectable cancer (detectable cancer that would prove fatal before age 85 if left untreated) was calculated from the observed prostate cancer mortality rate in Quebec; the annual rate of all cases of screen-detectable prostate cancer was calculated from 2 recent screening studies.
RESULTS: The annual rate of lethal screen-detectable prostate cancer was estimated to be 1.3 per 1000 men. The annual rate of all cases of screen-detectable prostate cancer was estimated to be 8.0 per 1000 men. The estimated case-fatality rate among men up to 85 years of age was 16% (1.3/8.0) (sensitivity analysis 13% to 22%).
INTERPRETATION: Of every 100 men with screen-detected prostate cancer, only 16 on average (13 to 22) could have their lives extended by surgery, since the prostate cancer would not cause death before age 85 in the remaining 84 (78 to 87).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9861205      PMCID: PMC1229854     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  28 in total

Review 1.  Report prepared for the Health Technology Assessment panel of the NHS Executive on the diagnosis, management, treatment and costs of prostate cancer in England and Wales.

Authors:  J Chamberlain; J Melia; S Moss; J Brown
Journal:  Br J Urol       Date:  1997-05

2.  Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Authors:  W J Catalona; D S Smith; T L Ratliff; K M Dodds; D E Coplen; J J Yuan; J A Petros; G L Andriole
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-04-25       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  G W Chodak; R A Thisted; G S Gerber; J E Johansson; J Adolfsson; G W Jones; G D Chisholm; B Moskovitz; P M Livne; J Warner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-01-27       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Trends in patterns of care for prostatic cancer, 1974-1983: results of surveys by the American College of Surgeons.

Authors:  J D Schmidt; C J Mettlin; N Natarajan; B B Peace; R W Beart; D P Winchester; G P Murphy
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease.

Authors:  H B Carter; J D Pearson; E J Metter; L J Brant; D W Chan; R Andres; J L Fozard; P C Walsh
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993).

Authors:  F J Fowler; M J Barry; G Lu-Yao; A Roman; J Wasson; J E Wennberg
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Cause-specific mortality: understanding uncertain tips of the disease iceberg.

Authors:  M J Goldacre
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men.

Authors:  William J Catalona; Jerome P Richie; Frederick R Ahmann; M'Liss A Hudson; Peter T Scardino; Robert C Flanigan; Jean B DeKernion; Timothy L Ratliff; Louis R Kavoussi; Bruce L Dalkin; W Bedford Waters; Michael T MacFarlane; Paula C Southwick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics.

Authors:  C Percy; E Stanek; L Gloeckler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 10.  A structured literature review of treatment for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Disease Patient Outcome Research Team.

Authors:  J H Wasson; C C Cushman; R C Bruskewitz; B Littenberg; A G Mulley; J E Wennberg
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1993-05
View more
  35 in total

1.  Priorities in future research in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 2.  Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: what are the results and how safe is it?

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  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

4.  Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel W Lin; John L Gore; John R Srigley; Hema Samaratunga; Lars Egevad; Mark A Rubin; John Nacey; Laurence Klotz; Howard Sandler; Anthony L Zietman; Stuart Holden; Peter A Humphrey; Andrew J Evans; Brett Delahunt; Jesse K McKenney; Daniel Berney; Thomas M Wheeler; Arul Chinnaiyan; Lawrence True; Beatrice Knudsen; Jonathan I Epstein; Mahul B Amin
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Epidemiological and clinical investigations among employees in a former herbicide production process.

Authors:  Michael Nasterlack; Gerhard Hoffmann; Peter Messerer; Marvin Gerald Ott; Dirk Pallapies; Marcus Wrede; Andreas Zober
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 3.015

6.  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

7.  SnoRNA U50 is a candidate tumor-suppressor gene at 6q14.3 with a mutation associated with clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xue-Yuan Dong; Carmen Rodriguez; Peng Guo; Xiaodong Sun; Jeffrey T Talbot; Wei Zhou; John Petros; Qunna Li; Robert L Vessella; Adam S Kibel; Victoria L Stevens; Eugenia E Calle; Jin-Tang Dong
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 8.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  The routine use of prostate-specific antigen for early detection of cancer prostate in India: Is it justified?

Authors:  Deepak Dubey
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.