Publications (13)209.83 Total impact
-
Article: Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: After 11 years of follow-up, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality among men who underwent screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, the extent to which harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit is uncertain. On the basis of ERSPC follow-up data, we used Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) to predict the number of prostate cancers, treatments, deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained after the introduction of PSA screening. Various screening strategies, efficacies, and quality-of-life assumptions were modeled. Per 1000 men of all ages who were followed for their entire life span, we predicted that annual screening of men between the ages of 55 and 69 years would result in nine fewer deaths from prostate cancer (28% reduction), 14 fewer men receiving palliative therapy (35% reduction), and a total of 73 life-years gained (average, 8.4 years per prostate-cancer death avoided). The number of QALYs that were gained was 56 (range, -21 to 97), a reduction of 23% from unadjusted life-years gained. To prevent one prostate-cancer death, 98 men would need to be screened and 5 cancers would need to be detected. Screening of all men between the ages of 55 and 74 would result in more life-years gained (82) but the same number of QALYs (56). The benefit of PSA screening was diminished by loss of QALYs owing to postdiagnosis long-term effects. Longer follow-up data from both the ERSPC and quality-of-life analyses are essential before universal recommendations regarding screening can be made. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others.).New England Journal of Medicine 08/2012; 367(7):595-605. · 53.30 Impact Factor -
Article: Protocol-based active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: anxiety levels in both men and their partners.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess anxiety levels and health-related quality of life in partners of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance. For low-risk PCa, active surveillance is frequently chosen as a monitoring strategy. Active surveillance has been shown to be associated with low anxiety levels and a fair health-related quality of life in patients. However, little is known about the impact on their partners. We hypothesized that the latter suffer more from PCa diagnosis than the men themselves. Therefore, between February and August 2010, 133 couples-a response rate of 46.9%-completed a written questionnaire at their individual time lags from PCa diagnosis. A Wilcoxon test was performed to assess how distress levels affected the couples' quality of life. Binary logistic regression was used to determine factors affecting distress levels. The mean age was 66.2 years in partners and 69.3 in men. At the time quartiles, partners had anxiety scores of 5.5, 4.6, 5.4, and 5.6. Scores in men were statistically significantly lower: 3.9 (P = .05), 2.0 (P < .001), 3.3 (P = .002), and 3.3 (P = .02), respectively. However, the partners' scores were still well below 7 (ie, normal). Prostate-specific anxiety scores were below the clinical threshold as well: 15.5, 9.5, 6.5, and 9.0, respectively. Active surveillance preserves an encouragingly high health-related quality of life in both men on active surveillance and their partners. Fortunately, the more adverse values of the partners are well within the normal range and thus clinically not relevant.Urology 07/2012; 80(3):564-9. · 2.43 Impact Factor -
Article: Comment on the US Preventive Services Task Force's draft recommendation on screening for prostate cancer.
European urology 04/2012; 61(4):851-4. · 7.67 Impact Factor -
Article: Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several trials evaluating the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing on prostate-cancer mortality have shown conflicting results. We updated prostate-cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with 2 additional years of follow-up. The study involved 182,160 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years at entry, with a predefined core age group of 162,388 men 55 to 69 years of age. The trial was conducted in eight European countries. Men who were randomly assigned to the screening group were offered PSA-based screening, whereas those in the control group were not offered such screening. The primary outcome was mortality from prostate cancer. After a median follow-up of 11 years in the core age group, the relative reduction in the risk of death from prostate cancer in the screening group was 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance. The absolute reduction in mortality in the screening group was 0.10 deaths per 1000 person-years or 1.07 deaths per 1000 men who underwent randomization. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer during follow-up years 10 and 11 was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P=0.003). To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected. There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality. Analyses after 2 additional years of follow-up consolidated our previous finding that PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.).New England Journal of Medicine 03/2012; 366(11):981-90. · 53.30 Impact Factor -
Article: Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: results from a contemporary European patient cohort.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Low-risk prostate cancer is frequently diagnosed in the context of PSA screening or during a routine check-up. For those patients, to avoid possible overtreatment AS is an increasingly chosen treatment option. However, the concept of AS could possibly misclassify potentially dangerous PCa as a low-risk disease resulting in inferior cancer control outcomes. In the present study, we could demonstrate that the histopathological results of patients treated by RP in course of AS are significantly better if the selection criteria for AS are entirely fulfilled. Our findings underline the importance of a strict and precise admittance procedure for patients with early prostate cancer who are willing to undergo an AS programme. • To compare the histopathological outcomes of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) after an initial active surveillance (AS) for localized, low-risk prostate cancers (PCa) among men who fulfilled the Epstein criteria at diagnosis with those who did not. • In all, 283 patients with localized PCa were initially managed at our institution with AS. • In all, ≈ 50% originated from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) participants from Switzerland: 75 (26.5%) patients underwent treatment during follow-up and 61 were treated with RP (21.6%). • These patients were stratified into those who did (n= 39) vs those who did not (n= 22) entirely fulfil AS inclusion criteria according to Epstein et al. at PCa diagnosis. • Patients who did completely fulfil the AS inclusion criteria had significantly lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-values (4.9 vs 7.8 ng/mL; P= 0.02), a significantly lower PSA density at diagnosis (0.09 vs 0.2 ng/mL/ccm; P= 0.007) and at RP, a higher proportion of organ-confined cancers (89.7% vs 59.1%, P= 0.02) and fewer positive surgical margins (25.6% vs 40.9%). • However, the rate of favourable histopathological outcome, defined as organ-confined disease with negative surgical margins, was statistically significantly higher in the group fulfilling AS criteria (69.2% vs 40.9%; P= 0.03). • In our AS series, 26.5% of the patients underwent definitive therapy. • Most patients treated with RP had organ-confined disease in the majority of cases, especially when the Epstein criteria were rigorously fulfilled at PCa diagnosis. • This underlines the importance of a strict and precise per protocol AS for patients with early PCa, otherwise there is a risk of missing more significant disease.BJU International 11/2011; 110(2):195-200. · 2.84 Impact Factor -
Article: The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in the large screening trial ERSPC
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer (PC) mortality is the most valid end-point in screening trials, but could be influenced by the choice of initial treatment if treatment has an effect on mortality. In this study, PC treatment was compared between the screening and control arms in a screening trial. Data were collected from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The characteristics and initial treatment of PC cases detected in the screening and the control arm were compared. Polytomous logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influence of study arm on treatment, adjusting for potential confounders and with statistical imputation of missing values. A total of 8,389 PC cases were detected, 5,422 in the screening arm and 3,145 in the control arm. Polytomous regression showed that trial arm was associated with treatment choice after correction for missing values, especially in men with high-risk PC. A control subject with high-risk PC was more likely than a screen subject to receive radiotherapy (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.01–2.05, p = 0.047), expectant management (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.33–6.42, p = 0.007) or hormonal treatment (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.07–2.94, p = 0.026) instead of radical prostatectomy. However, trial arm had only a minor role in treatment choice compared to other variables. In conclusion, a small effect of trial arm on treatment choice was seen, particularly in men with high-risk PC. Therefore, differences in treatment between arms are unlikely to play a major role in the interpretation of the results of the ERSPC.International Journal of Cancer 05/2010; 126(10):2387 - 2393. · 5.44 Impact Factor -
Article: 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).
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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. To assess the magnitude of the PCa-specific mortality reduction after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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 overdiagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening.European urology 08/2009; 56(4):584-91. · 7.67 Impact Factor -
Article: Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer was initiated in the early 1990s to evaluate the effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing on death rates from prostate cancer. We identified 182,000 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years through registries in seven European countries for inclusion in our study. The men were randomly assigned to a group that was offered PSA screening at an average of once every 4 years or to a control group that did not receive such screening. The predefined core age group for this study included 162,243 men between the ages of 55 and 69 years. The primary outcome was the rate of death from prostate cancer. Mortality follow-up was identical for the two study groups and ended on December 31, 2006. In the screening group, 82% of men accepted at least one offer of screening. During a median follow-up of 9 years, the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer was 8.2% in the screening group and 4.8% in the control group. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer in the screening group, as compared with the control group, was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.04). The absolute risk difference was 0.71 death per 1000 men. This means that 1410 men would need to be screened and 48 additional cases of prostate cancer would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The analysis of men who were actually screened during the first round (excluding subjects with noncompliance) provided a rate ratio for death from prostate cancer of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90). PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20% but was associated with a high risk of overdiagnosis. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.)New England Journal of Medicine 04/2009; 360(13):1320-8. · 53.30 Impact Factor -
Article: [Selective application of tumor markers PSA].
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tumor markers are being used in the early detection of cancer disease, diagnostics, prognosis, therapy and disease follow-up. A lot of clinical studies would not be nowadays possible without tumor markers. As in clinical practice the informative value of results is limited (by limited sensitivity and/or specificity) those markers should be selectively used, i.e. in such clinical setting where there is a clear benefit. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) has become the most important tumor marker in oncology. Its importance ranges from early detection of prostate cancer until therapy decision making in hormone refractory cancer. To prevent initial PSA- "terrorism" in early detection the patient must be well informed about risk of prostate cancer and therapeutic options inclusively possible side effects. Does the man at risk agree further evaluation by biopsy has to be performed directly above a PSA-cut-off 4.0 ng/ml. A high percentage of free PSA is not allowed to prolong diagnostic procedure. On the opposite, in PSA range 3.0-3.9 ng/ml and free-to-total PSA ratio less than 12% a prostate biopsy is also indicated. The diagnostic "grey zone" 4.0-10 ng/ml does not exist any more. Further follow-up should be done if the estimated life expectancy exceeds 10 years and should be performed in the PSA-range 2.0-3.9 ng/ml annually, in the PSA-range 1.0-1.9 ng/ml biannually and in the PSA range less that 1.0ng/ml triennially. About 3-25% of newly detected cancers are clinically insignificant. Models based on PSA, Gleason Score and tumor load of biopsies are helpful in identifying these men for "active surveillance" in curative intent. In conclusion: "Not every early detected cancer must be cured, but cancer where cure is necessary, must be early detected!" After primary therapy (operation/radiotherapy) one third of men will document a PSA only relapse. 30% of them will develop clinical symptoms and possible die from disease. PSA and especially PSA doubling time is a promising marker to identify these men at risk for whom salvage-radiotherapy, salvage prostatectomy or hormonal therapy can be an option. However the benefit in survival must be weight against a possible loss in quality of life.Therapeutische Umschau 10/2008; 65(9):493-501. -
Article: A (-5, -7) proPSA based artificial neural network to detect prostate cancer.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The pro-forms of prostate specific antigen (-2,-5,-7 proPSA) and also %free PSA based artificial neural networks (ANN) have been suggested to enhance the discrimination between prostate cancer (PCa) and no evidence of malignancy (NEM). This study reports on the combined use of proPSA within a %free PSA based ANN to enhance specificity of PCa. Serum samples from 898 patients with PCa (n=384) or NEM (n=514) within the PSA range 1-10 microg/l were analyzed for PSA, free PSA and (-5,-7) proPSA (Roche assays). Patient data from two centers - taken first from the Swiss site of the ERSPC (Aarau) and from a referral population (Berlin) have been analyzed. Leave-one-out ANN models with the variables PSA, %fPSA, proPSA, prostate volume and status of digital rectal examination (DRE) were constructed and compared by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. (-5,-7) proPSA was only significantly different between NEM and PCa in the PSA range 4-10 microg/l. Within the PSA range 4-10 microg/l (Berlin group) the ANN including only the two variables %fPSA and proPSA could reach the same performance like the conventional ANN with PSA, %fPSA, age, prostate volume and DRE (both AUCs: 0.84) However, at 95% sensitivity all ANN could not improve specificity compared to %fPSA. ProPSA as single parameter did not improve specificity over %fPSA whereas proPSA and %fPSA within an ANN in the PSA range 4-10 microg/l substituted prostate volume and DRE. At 95% sensitivity only ANN with prostate volume and DRE perform significantly better than %fPSA.European Urology 12/2006; 50(5):1014-20. · 8.49 Impact Factor -
Article: A multicenter clinical trial on the use of (-5, -7) pro prostate specific antigen.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The determination of pro prostate specific antigen (proPSA) forms has been suggested to be promising in prostate cancer diagnosis. In this multicenter trial we evaluated the diagnostic usefulness of (-5, -7) proPSA. A total of 2,055 white men, including 1,046 with and 1,009 without prostate cancer, with total PSA (tPSA) between 0.28 and 81 ng/ml were retrospectively analyzed. Of these men 2,026 and 1,727 had tPSA less than 20 and less than 10 ng/ml, respectively. All subjects were untreated for prostatic disease and underwent multisector needle biopsy of the prostate. An Elecsys 2010 analyzer was used to determine tPSA, free PSA (fPSA) and (-5, -7) proPSA in the 2,055 serum samples. ROC analyses were performed to discriminate men with biopsy positive and negative results in the entire and in select tPSA ranges. In the select tPSA range 2 to 4 ng/ml the area under the ROC curve for proPSA (0.53) and proPSA/fPSA (0.59) was not significantly larger than that for tPSA (0.60) or the fPSA/tPSA (f/tPSA) ratio (0.64). In the tPSA range 4 to 10 ng/ml the area under the curve for the ratio proPSA/fPSA (0.67) was larger than for tPSA (0.53) but not larger than for f/tPSA (0.69). The f/tPSA ratio demonstrated the best discriminatory power in this tPSA range of 4 to 10 ng/ml. In this multicenter study no improvement in diagnostic accuracy was shown when comparing (-5, -7) proPSA and the corresponding ratios with tPSA or f/tPSA. Further studies using other proPSA forms or tumor associated proteins should be done.The Journal of Urology 01/2006; 174(6):2150-3. · 3.75 Impact Factor -
Article: Discordance analysis characteristics as a new method to compare the diagnostic accuracy of tests: example of complexed versus total prostate-specific antigen.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: ROC curve analysis is used to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of tests, but its application to subgroups selected by a concentration range of only one marker may show severe biases. We developed a new approach, which we have named discordance analysis characteristics (DAC). The DAC method is based on a generalization of the McNemar test so that for a given pair of cutoff values only those patients are analyzed who are categorized differently by the two tests compared. The analyses are performed for all cutoff pairs that deliver identical sensitivities for both tests. We used data for total (tPSA) and complexed prostate-specific antigen (cPSA) from a recently published multicenter study to demonstrate the DAC method. The example shows that ROC analyses of subgroups can give contradictory results about the diagnostic accuracy of two markers, depending on the marker used for the selection of subgroups. The DAC method avoids artifacts attributable to questionable selection of subgroups and facilitates overall and local comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy of tests. The DAC results of the analyzed data set suggest that cPSA has higher diagnostic accuracy than does tPSA. The DAC method is a suitable tool for comparing the clinical usefulness of laboratory markers. The DAC method could be considered as an additional tool to ROC analysis and could replace comparative ROC analyses of diagnostic tests, especially within subgroups defined by only one of the markers.Clinical Chemistry 04/2005; 51(3):532-9. · 7.91 Impact Factor -
Article: A multicenter clinical trial on the use of complexed prostate specific antigen in low prostate specific antigen concentrations.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The determination of complexed prostate specific antigen (cPSA) has been suggested to be promising for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In a multicenter trial we evaluate the diagnostic use of PSA forms in the low total PSA (tPSA) range. A total of 283 white men with and 417 without PCa and tPSA concentrations between 0 and 6 ng/ml were retrospectively analyzed. All 700 untreated subjects underwent a multisector needle biopsy of the prostate. The Elecsys analyser 1010 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) was used for determination of tPSA and free PSA. Determination of cPSA and tPSA was performed using immunoassays of the Bayer Immuno 1 system (Bayer Diagnostics, Tarrytown, New York). Receiver operating characteristics analyses for discrimination between cases with and without PCa were performed. The areas under the curves (AUC) for cPSA, tPSA and free-to-total PSA (f/tPSA) showed no significant differences in the tPSA ranges of 0 to 6 (700 cases), 0 to 4 (510) and 0.5 to 2.5 ng/ml (253). Within the tPSA range of 2.5 to 4 ng/ml (230 cases) the AUC for cPSA (0.61) was significantly larger than that for tPSA (Roche 0.51, Bayer 0.54) but did not differ from the AUC of f/tPSA (Roche). On the basis of the cutoffs for 95% specificity or sensitivity, no significant increase in corresponding sensitivity or specificity was found between tPSA with cPSA. In the tPSA range of less than 4 ng/ml no improvement in diagnostic accuracy was shown between cPSA with tPSA or the ratio of f/tPSA. The search for a useful marker in the low PSA range must continue.The Journal of Urology 11/2003; 170(4 Pt 1):1175-9. · 3.75 Impact Factor
Top co-authors
Top Journals
Institutions
-
2012
-
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
- Department of Urology
Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
-
-
2008–2012
-
Kantonspital Aarau AG
- Urologische Klinik
Aarau, AG, Switzerland
-
-
2009
-
Erasmus MC
- Department of Urology
Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
-
-
2003–2006
-
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
- Department of Urology
Berlin, Land Berlin, Germany
-
