74
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Screening for prostate cancer.

      The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references222

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

          The effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality. From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual care as the control (38,350 subjects). Men in the screening group were offered annual PSA testing for 6 years and digital rectal examination for 4 years. The subjects and health care providers received the results and decided on the type of follow-up evaluation. Usual care sometimes included screening, as some organizations have recommended. The numbers of all cancers and deaths and causes of death were ascertained. In the screening group, rates of compliance were 85% for PSA testing and 86% for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50 deaths) in the screening group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70). The data at 10 years were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings. After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

              The objectives of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial are to determine in screenees ages 55-74 at entry whether screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy (60-cm sigmoidoscope) can reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, whether screening with chest X-ray can reduce mortality from lung cancer, whether screening men with digital rectal examination (DRE) plus serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce mortality from prostate cancer, and whether screening women with CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) can reduce mortality from ovarian cancer. Secondary objectives are to assess screening variables other than mortality for each of the interventions including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value; to assess incidence, stage, and survival of cancer cases; and to investigate biologic and/or prognostic characterizations of tumor tissue and biochemical products as intermediate endpoints. The design is a multicenter, two-armed, randomized trial with 37,000 females and 37,000 males in each of the two arms. In the intervention arm, the PSA and CA125 tests are performed at entry, then annually for 5 years. The DRE, TVU, and chest X-ray exams are performed at entry and then annually for 3 years. Sigmoidoscopy is performed at entry and then at the 5-year point. Participants in the control arm follow their usual medical care practices. Participants will be followed for at least 13 years from randomization to ascertain all cancers of the prostate, lung, colorectum, and ovary, as well as deaths from all causes. A pilot phase was undertaken to assess the randomization, screening, and data collection procedures of the trial and to estimate design parameters such as compliance and contamination levels. This paper describes eligibility, consent, and other design features of the trial, randomization and screening procedures, and an outline of the follow-up procedures. Sample-size calculations are reported, and a data analysis plan is presented.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                23440794
                10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3

                Comments

                Comment on this article