Search

Background: Screening for prostate cancer (PC) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to decrease mortality, but has adverse effects, such as false-positive (FP) screening results. We describe the frequency of FP results and assess their relation to subsequent screening attendance, test results and prostate cancer risk in a large randomized trial. Materials and methods: We included data from five centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, altogether over 61,000 screened men. Men were screened with PSA test at a 2-7 year interval depending on the centre; PSA cut-off was 3.0-4.0 ng/ml. A positive screen with no histologically confirmed PC in biopsy within 1 year was defined as an FP result. Results: Of the 61,604 men who were screened at least once, 17.8% had one or more FP result(s). Almost 20% of men who participated at all screening rounds had one or more FP result(s). More than half of the men with an FP result had another FP if screened again. Men with FP results had a fourfold risk of PC at subsequent screen (depending on the round, 10.0% versus 2.6-2.7% of men with negative screen, risk ratio 3.8-3.9). The PCs following an FP result were in 92.8% of cases localised and low-grade versus 90.4% following a screen-negative result. Conclusions: Our results show that FP results are common adverse effects in PC screening, as they affect at least one in six screened men. False-positive men are more prone to be diagnosed with PC but are also likely to have consistently high PSA levels. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The aim of the study: This article presents the incidence of prostate cancer, isolated high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and atypical lesions suspicious for prostate cancer (LSPC) during subsequent screening rounds in the centres of five of the countries participating in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The incidence and predictive value of high grade PIN and LSPC for prostate cancer in subsequent biopsy following these diagnoses were evaluated. Patients and methods: Study group consisted of 56,653 screened men in the ERSPC centres of Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, who underwent 3-7 screening rounds at 2-4 year interval. Data for prostate cancer were obtained from the ERSPC central database. Data for high grade PIN and LSPC were gathered from each ERSPC centre. Detection rates of subsequent prostate cancer in the first re-biopsy after these diagnoses were determined. Results: The average cancer detection rate was 3.5%, 3.2% and 3.5% for the completed rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in all five centres. Incidence of high grade PIN increased from 1.5% in the first round to 5.0% in the third round, varying among centres in the first round between 0.8% and 7.6%. The cancer detection rate in the first re-biopsy after the diagnosis of high grade PIN was 12.9%. Incidence of LSPC was 2.4%, 2.7%, 2.2% and 2.6% in the first, second, third and fourth round, respectively. The cancer detection rate at the first re-biopsy after the diagnosis of LSPC was in average 33.8%. Conclusions: Cancer detection rate was stable during the three screening rounds. The wide variation in frequency in particular of high grade PIN among the ERSPC centres suggests a considerable inter-observer variation. The average comparatively low detection rate of isolated high grade PIN in the first screening round may be screening-related, while its consistent increase during three screening rounds could be the consequence of a.o. previous screening and ageing of the population. The observed low risk of prostate cancer after isolated high grade PIN in this screening setting is in line with the current recommendation to abstain from early repeat biopsies after this diagnosis. The association of LSPC with high incidence of prostate cancer in re-biopsies confirms the need for early repeat biopsies and follow-up of these men. The low percentage of LSPC (

Background: To describe the variation in PSA level by age group and screening round in the ERSPC centres and the variation in cancer detection rates in relation to the underlying prostate cancer incidence. Methods: Individual data on men invited for the first and second screening rounds according to protocol (excluding early recalls and interval cancers) were obtained from the central database of the ERSPC (cut-off date 31st December 2006). Data were compared between and within centres for the core age group (55-69 at entry). The cancer detection rate (CDR) was compared with the expected background prostate cancer incidence rate in the absence of screening adjusted for the incidence rate in non-attenders and the control arm (IRS). Results: Mean PSA values in the age groups 55-59 years and 65-69 years showed little variation by centre, except for the Dutch centre, where an increase from 1.6 to 1.8 ng/ml and a decline from 2.9 to 2.5 ng/ml was observed, respectively. Most tumours were detected at the PSA range 4.0-9.9 ng/ml, with a shift to more cancer detection at 3.0-3.9 ng/ml in the second screening round. There was high variability in the CDR between the centres in both the first (16-46 per 1000) and the second screening rounds (14-50 per 1000). Although the ratio CDR/IRS was less variable, it is somewhat lower in Italy and Switzerland (12 and 14,respectively) and higher in the Netherlands (28), than in most other centres and in Belgium the ratio increased markedly, from 20 to 44 between the first and second rounds. Conclusion: There was no clear evidence of a relationship between the underlying incidence and mean PSA levels at screening or the cancer detection rate. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Decisions on policies for screening for prostate cancer require that information upon health-related quality of life (HRQL) and cost-effectiveness (CE) be available, as the lead time for some of the cases detected by screening will be very long and detriments in quality of life could have a major impact on the subjects remaining life-span. A framework within which both HRQL and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening can be assessed is presented. Studies of both are ongoing in the European Randomised Study of screening for prostate cancer and the US Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary trial. Preliminary information confirms that it is important to study screened subjects and controls, and not to assume that inferences derived from study of prostate cancer outside screening trials can be extrapolated to the trials. However, it will require prolonged study to enable the overall effects on quality of life, and on cost-effectiveness to be determined. Such studies are ongoing for the two trials.

Screening for prostate cancer has been advocated by a number of organisations largely because there is good evidence that administration of the test for prostate specific antigen (PSA) results in the detection of cancers at an early stage. However, the mere fact that a cancer can be detected earlier in its natural history by screening is no guarantee that benefit will follow. Further, screening for prostate cancer can substantially impair the quality of life of those with detected and treated cancer, that would not otherwise have reduced life expectancy. The only established mechanism to evaluate the efficacy of screening is the randomised controlled trial. In this paper we review the trials contributing to our collaboration, the advantages that will flow from them, and the reasons why decisions on the introduction of population-based screening for prostate cancer cannot be made before these trials have come to fruition.