Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

Prostate Cancer Mortality Reduction by Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening Adjusted for Nonattendance and Contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)

In English

Författare

  • Monique J. Roobol
  • Melissa Kerkhof
  • Fritz H. Schroeder
  • Jack Cuzick
  • Peter Sasieni
  • Matti Hakama
  • Ulf Hakan Stenman
  • Stefano Ciatto
  • Vera Nelen
  • Maciej Kwiatkowski
  • Marcos Lujan
  • Hans Lilja
  • Marco Zappa
  • Louis Denis
  • Franz Recker
  • Antonio Berenguer
  • Mirja Ruutu
  • Paula Kujala
  • Chris H. Bangma
  • Gunnar Aus
  • Teuvo L. J. Tammela
  • Arnauld Villers
  • Xavier Rebillard
  • Sue M. Moss
  • Harry J. de Koning
  • Jonas Hugosson
  • Anssi Auvinen
Visa allt

Summary, in English

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been shown to reduce prostate specific mortality by 20% in an intention to screen (ITS) analysis in a randomised trial (European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]). This effect may be diluted by nonattendance in men randomised to the screening arm and contamination in men randomised to the control arm. Objective: To assess the magnitude of the PCa-specific mortality reduction after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. Design, setting, and participants: We analysed the occurrence of PCa deaths during an average follow-up of 9 yr in 162 243 men 55-69 yr of age randomised in seven participating centres of the ERSPC. Centres were also grouped according to the type of randomisation (ie, before or after informed written consent). Intervention: Nonattendance was defined as nonattending the initial screening round in ERSPC. The estimate of contamination was based on PSA use in controls in ERSPC Rotterdam. Measurements: Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were compared between an ITS analysis and analyses adjusting for nonattendance and contamination using a statistical method developed for this purpose. Results and limitations: In the ITS analysis, the RR of PCa death in men allocated to the intervention arm relative to the control arm was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Adjustment for nonattendance resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.93), and additional adjustment for contamination using two different estimates led to estimated reductions of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51-0.92) to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), respectively. Contamination data were obtained through extrapolation of single-centre data. No heterogeneity was found between the groups of centres. Conclusions: PSA screening reduces the risk of dying of PCa by up to 31% in men actually screened. This benefit should be weighed against a degree of over diagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Publiceringsår

2009

Språk

Engelska

Sidor

584-591

Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie

European Urology

Volym

56

Issue

4

Dokumenttyp

Artikel i tidskrift

Förlag

Elsevier

Ämne

  • Urology and Nephrology

Nyckelord

  • Non compliance
  • Mortality reduction
  • Prostate cancer
  • Screening
  • Contamination
  • Adjusted analysis

Status

Published

Forskningsgrupp

  • Clinical Chemistry, Malmö

ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt

  • ISSN: 1873-7560