Prostate Cancer Mortality in the Finnish Randomized Screening Trial

Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland (NM, MH, LM)
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment (Impact Factor: 14.07). 03/2013; 105(10). DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
Prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to decrease PC mortality by the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We evaluated mortality results in the Finnish Prostate Cancer Screening Trial, the largest component of ERSPC. The primary endpoint was PC-specific mortality.MethodsA total of 80 144 men were identified from the population registry and randomized to either a screening arm (SA) or a control arm (CA). Men in the SA were invited to serum PSA determination up to three times with a 4-year interval between each scan and referred to biopsy if the PSA concentration was greater than or equal to 4.0ng/mL or 3.0 to 3.99ng/mL with a free/total PSA ratio less than or equal to 16%. Men in the CA received usual care. The analysis covers follow-up to 12 years from randomization for all men. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for incidence and mortality using Cox proportional hazard model. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsPC incidence was 8.8 per 1000 person-years in the SA and 6.6 in the CA (HR = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 1.40). The incidence of advanced PC was lower in the SA vs CA arm (1.2 vs 1.6, respectively; HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.82; P < .001). No statistically significant difference was observed between the SA and CA (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.04) (with intention-to-screen analysis). To avoid one PC death, we needed to invite 1199 men to screening and to detect 25 PCs. We observed no difference in all-cause mortality between trial arms.Conclusions
At 12 years, a relatively conservative screening protocol produced a small, non-statistically significant PC-specific mortality reduction in the Finnish trial, at the cost of moderate overdiagnosis.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and second leading cause of death in men. The evidence base for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer is continually changing. We aim to review and discuss past and contemporary papers on these topics to provoke debate and highlight key dilemmas faced by the urological community. We review key papers on prostate-specific antigen screening, radical prostatectomy versus surveillance strategies, targeted therapies, timing of radiotherapy and alternative anti-androgen therapeutics. Previously, the majority of patients, irrespective of risk, underwent radical open surgical procedures associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Evidence is emerging that not all prostate cancers are alike and that low-grade disease can be safely managed by surveillance strategies and localized treatment to the prostate. The question remains as to how to accurately stage the disease and ultimately choose which treatment pathway to follow.
    Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 10/2014; 14(11). DOI:10.1586/14737140.2014.974565 · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized trials on the effects of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) on disease-specific mortality accumulates slowly with increasing follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess data on PCa-specific mortality in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized controlled trial with randomization after signed, written informed consent (efficacy trial). In the period 1993-1999, a total of 42 376 men aged 54-74 yr were randomized to a screening arm (S-arm) (n = 21 210 with screening every 4 yr, applying a total prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level cut-off ≥3.0 ng/ml as biopsy indication) or a control arm (C-arm) (n = 21 166; no intervention). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Number of PCas detected per arm depicted by predefined time periods and prognostic groups. PCa-specific mortality analyses using Poisson regression in age group 55-74 yr at randomization and separately in the predefined age group of 55-69 yr. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 yr, 19 765 men (94.2%) were screened at least once and 2674 PCas were detected (of which 561 [21.0%] were interval PCas). In the C-arm, 1430 PCas were detected, resulting in an excess incidence of 59 PCas per 1000 men randomized (61 PCas per 1000 in age group 55-69 yr). Thirty-two percent of all men randomized have died. PCa-specific mortality relative-risk (RR) reductions of 20.0% overall (age: 55-74 yr; p = 0.042) and 31.6% (age: 55-69 yr; p = 0.004) were found. A 14.1% increase was found in men aged 70-74 yr (not statistically significant). Absolute PCa mortality was 1.8 per 1000 men randomized (2.6 per 1000 men randomized in age group 55-69 yr). The number needed to invite and number needed to manage were 565 and 33, respectively, for age group 55-74 yr, and 392 and 24, respectively, for age group 65-69 yr. Given the slow natural history of the disease, follow-up might be too short. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic PSA-based screening reduced PCa-specific mortality by 32% in the age range of 55-69 yr. The roughly twofold higher incidence in the S-arm underlines the importance of tools to better identify those men who would benefit from screening.
    European Urology 05/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.030 · 10.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:The association between nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and prostate cancer risk remains controversial. We examined the risk among NSAID users in 78 615 men in the Finnish Prostate Cancer Screening Trial.Methods:We obtained information on NSAID prescription usage from Finnish nationwide prescription database and on over-the-counter use by a questionnaire. Prostate cancer cases were identified from the Finnish Cancer Registry.Results:Prostate cancer risk was elevated among current NSAID prescription users irrespective of screening (hazard ratio (HR)=1.45, confidence interval (95% CI)=1.33-1.59 and HR=1.71, 95% CI=1.58-1.86 in the screening and control arm, respectively), but not for previous use of NSAIDs. The risk increase was similar among coxib and acetaminophen current users, and stronger for metastatic prostate cancer (HR=2.41, 95% CI=1.59-3.67 and HR=3.44, 95% CI=2.60-4.55 in the screening and control arm, respectively). Previous use of NSAIDs, aspirin use and over-the-counter NSAID usage were not associated with prostate cancer.Conclusions:Differing association for current and previous use suggests that the risk increase is unlikely to be directly caused by the medication, but may be due to the conditions indicating NSAID prescription usage, such as symptoms of undiagnosed prostate cancer. To reduce inconsistency between the study outcomes, future epidemiological studies on NSAID use and prostate cancer risk should assess the indications for NSAID usage.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 10 July 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.381
    British Journal of Cancer 07/2014; 111(7). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.381 · 4.82 Impact Factor


Available from
May 28, 2014