Search

Prostate cancer screening may detect nonprogressive cancers, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The potential for overdiagnosis can be assessed from the reservoir of prostate cancer in autopsy studies that report incidental prostate cancer rates in men who died of other causes. We aimed to estimate the age-specific incidental cancer prevalence from all published autopsy studies. We identified eligible studies by searches of Medline and Embase, forward and backward citation searches and contacting authors. We screened the titles and abstracts of all articles; checked the full-text articles for eligibility and extracted clinical and pathology data using standardized forms. We extracted mean cancer prevalence, age-specific cancer prevalence and validity measures and then pooled data from all studies using logistic regression models with random effects. The 29 studies included in the review dated from 1948 to 2013. Incidental cancer was detected in all populations, with no obvious time trends in prevalence. Prostate cancer prevalence increased with each decade of age, OR = 1.7 (1.6–1.8), and was higher in studies that used the Gleason score, OR = 2.0 (1.1–3.7). No other factors were significantly predictive. The estimated mean cancer prevalence increased in a nonlinear fashion from 5% (95% CI: 3–8%) at age 79 years. There was substantial variation between populations in estimated cancer prevalence. There is a substantial reservoir of incidental prostate cancer which increases with age. The high risk of overdiagnosis limits the usefulness of prostate cancer screening. What’s new? Before symptoms of prostate cancer manifest clinically, many men die of other causes. Yet, prostate screening, particularly in older men, frequently turns out positive, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This meta-analysis of published autopsy studies shows that incidental prostate cancer increases with age and with the use of sensitive screening strategies, especially in older men. Among men whose prostate cancers are designated “favorable-risk,” active surveillance and subsequent biopsy can result in reclassification with higher-grade cancer, purely by chance. The potential for the detection of clinically irrelevant, incidental prostate cancer is high, indicating a need for improved screening strategies.

Objectives: To test the acceptability of screening and to identify modifiable risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men. Design: A trial of ultrasound screening for AAA in a population-based random sample of men aged 65-83 years, and a cross-sectional case-control comparison of men in the same sample. Participants: 12203 men who had an ultrasound examination of their abdominal aorta, and completed a questionnaire covering demographic, behavioural and medical factors. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of AAA, and independent associations of AAA with demographic, medical and lifestyle factors. Results: Invitations to screening produced a corrected response of 70.5%. The prevalence of AAAs (> 30 mm) rose from 4.8% in men aged 65-69 years to 10.8% in those aged 80-83 years. The overall prevalence of large (> 50 mm) aneurysms was 0.69%. In a multivariate logistic model Mediterranean-born men had a 40% lower risk of AAA (> 30 mm) compared with men born in Australia (odds ratio [OR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), while ex-smokers had a significantly increased risk of AAA (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.9-2.8), and current smokers had even higher risks. AAA was significantly associated with established coronary and peripheral arterial disease and a waist:hip ratio greater than 0.9; men who regularly undertook vigorous exercise had a lower risk (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). Conclusion: Ultrasound screening for AAA is acceptable to men in the likely target population. AAA shares some but not all of the risk factors for occlusive vascular disease, but the scope for primary prevention of AAA in later life is limited.

Many reports of screening programmes using the 'Hemoccult' faecal occult blood test have been published recently. Falsely optimistic results in such short term or nonexperimental studies can be caused by three biases of method: the lead-time bias, the length bias, and the volunteer bias. Their mechanisms, and methods for counteracting their effects are described. Literature biases that occur in papers written on this subject by enthusiasts are also described. Many apparently valuable screening tests have failed in the practical setting, so caution in the use of occult blood screening is urged until long term follow-up results are obtained from a trial currently being conducted in Minnesota.

Elementary teacher preparation programs may exclude disabled students because of faulty assumptions about their employment opportunities. This study asked superintendents, certification officers, elementary teacher educators and teacher placement directors to judge the employability of variously disabled elementary teachers. There were marked differences in the apparent employability of disabled teachers, with social deviants judged less acceptable than persons with severe sensory or motor impairments. The existence of small numbers of respondents who judged virtually all the examples to be employable suggests that disabled applicants could find employment as elementary teachers.