Introduction: This report describes survival data of participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), section Rotterdam, diagnosed with prostate cancer (pCA) during the first round of screening, the prevalence screen. Patients and methods: pCA characteristics from cases diagnosed during the first screening round from December 1993 to March 2000 are shown. During follow-up, data were collected by semiannual patient chart review for the first 5 yr and annually thereafter. The causes of death are scored according to the diagnosis of the treating physician and are not based on the review of the independent causes-of-death committee. Overall and disease-specific survival graphs are shown in Kaplan-Maier projections and compared with expected survival outcomes for males in the same age categories from the Dutch provinces of North Holland and Flevoland. Statistical evaluation was based on Cox regression analysis. Results: During the prevalence screening, 1014 patients were diagnosed with pCA. Median follow up was 55 mo, 126 (12.4%) patients died, 20 (2.0%) of pCA. Overall 5-yr observed and expected disease-specific survival was 97.7% and 82%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, a Gleason sum of 4+4 or higher (p = 0.025) was predictive of pCA death. Conclusions: The observed survival data are in line with the literature and the expected favorable outcome for a screened population. The proportion of men dying from pCA is still small, and a 10-yr follow-up period for the final evaluation of the ERSPC may be too short.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Disease-specific survival, Overall survival, Prostate cancer, Screen detected
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.052, hdl.handle.net/1765/36134
Citation
de Vries, S.H, Postma, R, Raaijmakers, R.H, Roemeling, S, Otto, S.J, de Koning, H.J, & Schröder, F.H. (2007). Overall and Disease-Specific Survival of Patients with Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Section Rotterdam. European Urology, 51(2), 366–374. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.052