Blog
About

12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Screening for prostate cancer

      1 , 2 , 3 , 2 , 4

      Cochrane Urology Group

      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          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. 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in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 237

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Global cancer statistics.

          The global burden of cancer continues to increase largely because of the aging and growth of the world population alongside an increasing adoption of cancer-causing behaviors, particularly smoking, in economically developing countries. Based on the GLOBOCAN 2008 estimates, about 12.7 million cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths are estimated to have occurred in 2008; of these, 56% of the cases and 64% of the deaths occurred in the economically developing world. Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among females, accounting for 23% of the total cancer cases and 14% of the cancer deaths. Lung cancer is the leading cancer site in males, comprising 17% of the total new cancer cases and 23% of the total cancer deaths. Breast cancer is now also the leading cause of cancer death among females in economically developing countries, a shift from the previous decade during which the most common cause of cancer death was cervical cancer. Further, the mortality burden for lung cancer among females in developing countries is as high as the burden for cervical cancer, with each accounting for 11% of the total female cancer deaths. Although overall cancer incidence rates in the developing world are half those seen in the developed world in both sexes, the overall cancer mortality rates are generally similar. Cancer survival tends to be poorer in developing countries, most likely because of a combination of a late stage at diagnosis and limited access to timely and standard treatment. A substantial proportion of the worldwide burden of cancer could be prevented through the application of existing cancer control knowledge and by implementing programs for tobacco control, vaccination (for liver and cervical cancers), and early detection and treatment, as well as public health campaigns promoting physical activity and a healthier dietary intake. Clinicians, public health professionals, and policy makers can play an active role in accelerating the application of such interventions globally.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

            This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.

              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.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                January 31 2013
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Monash University; Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine; The Alfred Centre, Level 6, 99 Commercial Rd Melbourne Victoria Australia 3004
                [2 ]University of Florida; Department of Urology; PO Box 100247 Gainesville Florida USA 32610
                [3 ]University of South Florida; Tampa Florida USA
                [4 ]Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Gainesville Florida USA
                10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3
                23440794
                © 2013
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article