Article

Prostate-specific antigen screening and mortality from prostate cancer.

Department of Epidemiology, UMDNJ-School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 04/2008; 23(3):248-53. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-007-0479-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is no available evidence from randomized trials that early detection of prostate cancer improves health outcomes, but the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is commonly used to screen men for prostate cancer.
The objective of the study is to see if screening with PSA decreases mortality from prostate cancer.
This is a case-control study using one-to-one matching on race, age, and time of availability of exposure to PSA screening. Decedents, 380, from New Jersey Vital Statistics 1997 to 2000 inclusive, 55-79 years of age at diagnosis were matched to living controls without metastatic prostate cancer. Medical records were obtained from all providers, and we abstracted information about PSA tests from 1989 to the time of diagnosis in each index case.
Measurements consist of a comparison of screening (yes, no) between cases and controls. Measure of association was the odds ratio.
Eligible cases were diagnosed each year from 1989 to 1999 with the median year being 1993. PSA screening was evident in 23.2-29.2% of cases and 21.8-26.1% of controls depending on the screening criteria. The unadjusted, matched odds ratio for dying of prostate cancer if ever screened was 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.60) for the most restrictive criteria and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66) for the least restrictive. Adjustment for comorbidity and education level made no significant differences in these values. There were no significant interactions by age or race.
PSA screening using an ever/never tabulation for tests from 1989 until 2000 did not protect New Jersey men from prostate cancer mortality.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
67 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although findings from recently published clinical trials and a review from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggest that there is limited to no prostate cancer mortality benefit associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, confusion remains as to whether the use of PSA as a screening tool for prostate cancer is warranted. A systematic literature review was done in 2012 to identify case-control studies from the past 20 years that focused on evaluating the association between screening for prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality. Emphasis was put on synthesizing the results of these studies, evaluating their limitations, and identifying remaining questions and issues that should be addressed in future studies. A total of seven studies were identified in this time period, with the majority suggesting that a reduction in prostate cancer mortality is associated with PSA screening. However, the findings may be limited by various biases inherent to case-control studies of screening tests, such as selection biases resulting from both case and control subject selection, exposure measurement issues, lead and length biases, and issues specific to prostate cancer screening such as the influence of digital rectal examinations. Findings from existing case-control studies of PSA and prostate cancer mortality suggest that there is a mortality benefit from PSA screening. However, these studies may be limited by bias and must therefore be interpreted with caution. As uncertainty regarding PSA screening remains, future studies to evaluate the association between PSA and prostate cancer mortality should address these potential biases directly.
    American journal of preventive medicine 09/2013; 45(3):318-26. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.015 · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review. To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events. An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials. All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported). Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 1(1):CD004720. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the total number of patients who would be expected to present with metastatic (M1) prostate cancer (PC) in the modern US population in a given year if the age-specific and race-specific annual incidence rates of M1 PC were the same as the rates in the era before prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. METHODS: The authors computed the total number of men who presented with M1 PC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 9 registries area in the year 2008 (the most recent SEER year) and estimated the number of cases that would be expected to occur in this area in the year 2008 in the absence of PSA testing. The expected number was computed by multiplying each age-race-specific average annual incidence rate from the pre-PSA era (1983-1985) by the number of men in the corresponding age-race category in the year 2008 and adding the products. RESULTS: In the year 2008, the observed and expected numbers of men presenting with M1 PC in the SEER 9 registries area were 739 and 2277, respectively, with an expected-to-observed ratio of 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-3.2). If this ratio was applied to the total US population in the year 2008, then the total number of men presenting with M1 PC in that year would be equal to approximately 25,000 instead of the approximately 8000 actually observed. CONCLUSIONS: If the pre-PSA era rates were present in the modern US population, then the total number of men presenting with M1 PC would be approximately 3 times greater than the number actually observed. Cancer 2012;. © 2012 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 07/2012; 118(23). DOI:10.1002/cncr.27503 · 5.20 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from