Search

Background: Screening men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. We aimed to estimate the likely budgetary impact on secondary care in England and Wales to inform screening decision makers. Methods: The Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer study (CAP) compared a single invitation to men aged 50–69 for a PSA test with usual care (no screening). Routinely collected hospital care data were obtained for all men in CAP, and NHS reference costs were mapped to each event via Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. Secondary-care costs per man per year were calculated, and cost differences (and population-level estimates) between arms were derived annually for the first five years following randomisation. Results: In the first year post-randomisation, secondary-care costs averaged across all men (irrespective of a prostate cancer diagnosis) in the intervention arm (n = 189279) were £44.80 (95% confidence interval: £18.30-£71.30) higher than for men in the control arm (n = 219357). Extrapolated to a population level, the introduction of a single PSA screening invitation could lead to additional secondary care costs of £314 million. Conclusions: Introducing a single PSA screening test for men aged 50–69 across England and Wales could lead to very high initial secondary-care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021., Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis., Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Study Objective: To investigate the association of having been breast fed with cardiovascular disease risk factors, incidence, and mortality., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Caerphilly, South Wales., Participants: All men aged 45-59 years living in and around the study area. Of 2818 eligible men, 2512 (89%) were seen. Altogether 1580 men (63%) obtained details of how they had been fed in infancy (ever breast fed or only bottle fed) from their mother or a close female relative. A subset of 1062 subjects reported on whether bottle fed or the duration of breast feeding if breast fed., Main Results: Breast feeding was not associated with stature, blood pressure, insulin resistance, total cholesterol, or fibrinogen. In fully adjusted models (controlling for age, birth order, and social position in childhood and adulthood), breast feeding was associated with greater body mass index than bottle feeding (difference: 0.41 kg/m(2) (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.81). There was a positive association between breast feeding and coronary heart disease mortality (hazard ratio: 1.73; 1.17 to 2.55) and incidence (1.54; 1.17 to 2.04) (fully adjusted models). There was no evidence of a duration-response effect, which might be expected if an adverse effect of breast feeding was causal., Conclusion: These data provide little evidence of a protective influence of breast feeding on cardiovascular disease risk factors, incidence, or mortality. A possible adverse effect of breast feeding on coronary heart disease incidence was observed but may have a number of explanations, including selection and information bias. In view of these limitations, further long term studies with improved measures of infant feeding are required to confirm or refute these findings.

The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity appears to be lower in rural than urban areas. Using the Fourth National GP Morbidity Survey (1991-1992) we have compared patterns of GP consultation for mental illness by young people living in rural and urban areas to investigate whether patterns of morbidity are reflected in GP help-seeking. We investigated whether urban-rural differences were due to differences in the socio-economic characteristics of residents. The crude rate ratio for consultation for mental disorder in rural compared to urban males was 0.55 (95% Cl 0.47 to 0.65) and for females was 0.78 (0.71 to 0.86). After controlling for socioeconomic differences between rural and urban areas, consultation rates for mental illness were 30% (95% Cl 19% to 41%) lower in males and 16 per cent (8% to 24%) lower in females in rural compared to urban areas. These findings are in line with population surveys indicating that levels of mental illness are lower in rural compared to urban areas. Part of the difference economic characteristics of people living in these areas. Further studies are needed to investigate possible area effects on the prevalence of mental illness. reflects differences in the socio-