54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.

          Data extraction

          At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.

          Results

          Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.

          Conclusions

          At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.

          The optimal upper limit of the normal range for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is unknown. We investigated the prevalence of prostate cancer among men in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who had a PSA level of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less. Of 18,882 men enrolled in the prevention trial, 9459 were randomly assigned to receive placebo and had an annual measurement of PSA and a digital rectal examination. Among these 9459 men, 2950 men never had a PSA level of more than 4.0 ng per milliliter or an abnormal digital rectal examination, had a final PSA determination, and underwent a prostate biopsy after being in the study for seven years. Among the 2950 men (age range, 62 to 91 years), prostate cancer was diagnosed in 449 (15.2 percent); 67 of these 449 cancers (14.9 percent) had a Gleason score of 7 or higher. The prevalence of prostate cancer was 6.6 percent among men with a PSA level of up to 0.5 ng per milliliter, 10.1 percent among those with values of 0.6 to 1.0 ng per milliliter, 17.0 percent among those with values of 1.1 to 2.0 ng per milliliter, 23.9 percent among those with values of 2.1 to 3.0 ng per milliliter, and 26.9 percent among those with values of 3.1 to 4.0 ng per milliliter. The prevalence of high-grade cancers increased from 12.5 percent of cancers associated with a PSA level of 0.5 ng per milliliter or less to 25.0 percent of cancers associated with a PSA level of 3.1 to 4.0 ng per milliliter. Biopsy-detected prostate cancer, including high-grade cancers, is not rare among men with PSA levels of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less--levels generally thought to be in the normal range. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence.

            To clarify the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments and guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer

              We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor
                Role: postdoctoral fellow
                Role: associate professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: statistician
                Role: medical librarian
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2018
                05 September 2018
                : 362
                : k3519
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]National Clinicians Scholars Program, Yale University School of Medicine, and Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                [3 ]Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
                [4 ]Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
                [5 ]Urology Section, Minneapolis VAMC and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
                [6 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [7 ]Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff University Library Services, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, Wales
                [8 ]Division of General Internal Medicine and Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Corresponding to: P Dahm pdahm@ 123456umn.edu
                Article
                ilid045408
                10.1136/bmj.k3519
                6283370
                30185521
                c9329a0d-e7d1-4f07-a91a-c7a57e388fcf
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 31 July 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article