http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/16113/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37453/ 2012-11-01T00:00:00Z Background: Metastatic disease is a major morbidity of prostate cancer (PCa). Its prevention is an important goal. Objective: To assess the effect of screening for PCa on the incidence of metastatic disease in a randomized trial. Design, setting, and participants: Data were available for 76 813 men aged 55-69 yr coming from four centers of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The presence of metastatic disease was evaluated by imaging or by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >100 ng/ml at diagnosis and during follow-up. Intervention: Regular screening based on serum PSA measurements was offered to 36 270 men randomized to the screening arm, while no screening was provided to the 40 543 men in the control arm. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The Nelson-Aalen technique and Poisson regression were used to calculate cumulative incidence and rate ratios of M+ disease. Results and limitations: After a median follow-up of 12 yr, 666 men with M+ PCa were detected, 256 in the screening arm and 410 in the control arm, resulting in cumulative incidence of 0.67% and 0.86% per 1000 men, respectively (p < 0.001). This finding translated into a relative reduction of 30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.82; p = 0.001) in the intention-to-screen analysis and a 42% (p = 0.0001) reduction for men who were actually screened. An absolute risk reduction of metastatic disease of 3.1 per 1000 men randomized (0.31%) was found. A large discrepancy was seen when comparing the rates of M+ detected at diagnosis and all M+ cases that emerged during the total follow-up period, a 50% reduction (HR: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62) versus the 30% reduction. The main limitation is incomplete explanation of the lack of an effect of screening during follow-up. Conclusions: PSA screening significantly reduces the risk of developing metastatic PCa. However, despite earlier diagnosis with screening, certain men still progress and develop metastases. The ERSPC trial is registered under number ISRCTN49127736. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/39092/ 2012-08-16T00:00:00Z Background: After 11 years of follow-up, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality among men who underwent screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, the extent to which harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit is uncertain. Methods: On the basis of ERSPC follow-up data, we used Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) to predict the number of prostate cancers, treatments, deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained after the introduction of PSA screening. Various screening strategies, efficacies, and quality-of-life assumptions were modeled. Results: Per 1000 men of all ages who were followed for their entire life span, we predicted that annual screening of men between the ages of 55 and 69 years would result in nine fewer deaths from prostate cancer (28% reduction), 14 fewer men receiving palliative therapy (35% reduction), and a total of 73 life-years gained (average, 8.4 years per prostate-cancer death avoided). The number of QALYs that were gained was 56 (range, -21 to 97), a reduction of 23% from unadjusted life-years gained. To prevent one prostate-cancer death, 98 men would need to be screened and 5 cancers would need to be detected. Screening of all men between the ages of 55 and 74 would result in more life-years gained (82) but the same number of QALYs (56). Conclusions: The benefit of PSA screening was diminished by loss of QALYs owing to postdiagnosis long-term effects. Longer follow-up data from both the ERSPC and quality-of-life analyses are essential before universal recommendations regarding screening can be made. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others.) Copyright http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33983/ 2011-12-01T00:00:00Z 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. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34380/ 2011-06-01T00:00:00Z OBJECTIVE To assess possible excess mortality associated with prostate biopsy among screening participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). patientS AND METHODS From three centres in the ERSPC (Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden) 50 194 screened men aged 50.2-78.4 years were prospectively followed. A cohort of 12 959 first-time screening-positive men (i.e. with biopsy indication) was compared with another cohort of 37 235 first-time screening-negative men. Overall mortality rates (i.e. other cause than prostate cancer mortality) were calculated and the 120-day and 1-year cumulative mortality were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a log-rank test for statistical significance. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and statistical significance were evaluated using Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for age, total PSA level, screening centre and whether a biopsy indication was present, or whether a biopsy was actually performed or not. RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative 120-day other cause mortality between the two groups of men: 0.24% (95% CI, 0.17-0.34) for screening-positive men vs 0.24% (95% CI, 0.20-0.30) for screening-negative men (P= 0.96). This implied no excess mortality for screening-positive men. Screening-positive men who were not biopsied (n= 1238) had a more than fourfold risk of other cause mortality during the first 120 days compared to screening-negative men: RR, 4.52 (95% CI, 2.63-7.74) (P < 0.001), adjusted for age, whereas men who were actually biopsied (n= 11 721) had half the risk: RR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.73) (P= 0.002), adjusted for age. Only 14/31 (45%) of the screening-positive men who died within 120 days were biopsied and none died as an obvious complication to the biopsy. CONCLUSION Prostate biopsy is not associated with excess mortality and fatal complications appear to be very rare. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21387/ 2010-11-01T00:00:00Z Objective: To evaluate a change in tumour characteristics and applied treatments over time in the control arm of all centres of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and to compare this with similar data of the screening arm. Methods: Between 1993 and 2003, 182,160 men, aged 50-74 years, were randomised to the screening arm (N = 82,816) and the control arm (N = 99,184). Men in the screening arm were offered Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing every 4 years whilst men in the control arm received usual care. Tumour characteristics and treatment were evaluated in all men diagnosed with prostate cancer up to December 2006 or the third screening round. Data on the control arm were divided into 3 periods: 1994-1998, 1999-2002 and 2003-2006. Results: Tumour characteristics were more favourable over time in both the control and the screening arm, with especially increasing proportions of T1C tumours with 29% in 1994-1998 versus 50% in 2003-2006 and 48% at the initial screening round versus 75% at the third screening round, respectively. Tumour characteristics observed in the last period of the control arm were comparable to tumour characteristics in the initial screening round. In the control arm, treatment changed over time with surgery as the most common treatment in the entire observed period, but almost doubling of expectant management and the combination of hormone therapy and radiotherapy over time. In the initial screening round, surgery was the most common treatment (42%), changing over time to expectant management as the most frequently applied treatment in the third screening round (33%). Conclusion: Tumour characteristics in the control arm became more favourable over time and show similarity with prostate cancer cases detected at the initial screening round. The most prominent change in treatment over time was an increase of application of expectant management in both arms of the ERSPC. These observations reflect an increasing rate of opportunistic testing over time in men randomised to the control arm. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27465/ 2010-10-15T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: The benefits of prostate cancer screening on an individual level remain unevaluated. METHODS: Between 1993 and 1999, a total of 43,987 men, aged 55-74 years, were included in the intervention arm of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) section in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland. A total of 42,503 men, aged 55-74 years, were included in a clinical population in Northern Ireland. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20.0 ng/mL was measured in all men at study entry. All men were followed for prostate cancer incidence and causes of death until December 31, 2006. RESULTS: The adjusted absolute difference in prostate cancer specific mortality between the intervention population and the clinical population increased with increasing PSA level at study entry, ie, 0.05 per 10,000 person-years for men who had a serum PSA level of 0.0-1.9 ng/mL and 8.8 per 10,000 person-years for men who had a serum PSA level of 10-19.9 ng/mL. To evaluate the risks of early detection, the number needed to investigate (NNI) and number needed to treat (NNT) to save 1 death from prostate cancer were calculated. Both NNI and NNT were higher for those who had lower PSA levels at study entry. The NNI was 24,642 men for patients who had a serum PSA level of 0.0-1.9 ng/mL and was 133 men for patients who had a serum PSA level of 10-19.9 ng/mL; the NNT was 724 men for patients who had a serum PSA level of 0.0-1.9 ng/mL and was 60 men for patients with a serum PSA level of 10-19.9 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: For men with a low serum PSA level, the benefits of aggressive investigation and treatment may be limited because they are associated with a large increase in cumulative incidence and potential overtreatment. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27565/ 2010-05-15T00:00:00Z Prostate cancer (PC) mortality is the most valid end-point in screening trials, but could be influenced by the choice of initial treatment if treatment has an effect on mortality. In this study, PC treatment was compared between the screening and control arms in a screening trial. Data were collected from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The characteristics and initial treatment of PC cases detected in the screening and the control arm were compared. Polytomous logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influence of study arm on treatment, adjusting for potential confounders and with statistical imputation of missing values. A total of 8,389 PC cases were detected, 5,422 in the screening arm and 3,145 in the control arm. Polytomous regression showed that trial arm was associated with treatment choice after correction for missing values, especially in men with high-risk PC. A control subject with high-risk PC was more likely than a screen subject to receive radiotherapy (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.01-2.05, p = 0.047), expectant management (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.33-6.42, p = 0.007) or hormonal treatment (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.07-2.94, p = 0.026) instead of radical prostatectomy. However, trial arm had only a minor role in treatment choice compared to other variables. In conclusion, a small effect of trial arm on treatment choice was seen, particularly in men with high-risk PC. Therefore, differences in treatment between arms are unlikely to play a major role in the interpretation of the results of the ERSPC. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/24365/ 2009-10-01T00:00:00Z Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been shown to reduce prostate specific mortality by 20% in an intention to screen (ITS) analysis in a randomised trial (European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]). This effect may be diluted by nonattendance in men randomised to the screening arm and contamination in men randomised to the control arm. Objective: To assess the magnitude of the PCa-specific mortality reduction after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. Design, setting, and participants: We analysed the occurrence of PCa deaths during an average follow-up of 9 yr in 162 243 men 55-69 yr of age randomised in seven participating centres of the ERSPC. Centres were also grouped according to the type of randomisation (ie, before or after informed written consent). Intervention: Nonattendance was defined as nonattending the initial screening round in ERSPC. The estimate of contamination was based on PSA use in controls in ERSPC Rotterdam. Measurements: Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared between an ITS analysis and analyses adjusting for nonattendance and contamination using a statistical method developed for this purpose. Results and limitations: In the ITS analysis, the RR of PCa death in men allocated to the intervention arm relative to the control arm was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Adjustment for nonattendance resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.93), and additional adjustment for contamination using two different estimates led to estimated reductions of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51-0.92) to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), respectively. Contamination data were obtained through extrapolation of single-centre data. No heterogeneity was found between the groups of centres. Conclusions: PSA screening reduces the risk of dying of PCa by up to 31% in men actually screened. This benefit should be weighed against a degree of overdiagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25267/ 2009-07-01T00:00:00Z Test sensitivity pertains to the ability of a test to identify subjects with the target disorder. In cancer screening, test sensitivity can be estimated using interval cancer incidence as an indicator of false-negative result. A randomized trial provides the optimal approach for estimating test sensitivity, as the control arm provides the expected rates. We estimated the sensitivity of the prostate-specific antigen test using incidence method, i.e., based on incidence of interval cancer among subjects with negative screening results, compared with that in the control arm. Data from three centers in the European randomized screening trial were used to estimate interval cancer incidence (II) among 39,389 men with negative screening tests. This was compared with incidence among the 79,525 men in the control arm of the trial (Ic) to estimate test sensitivity (S = 1 - II/ IC). Confidence intervals were calculated using simulations, assuming that the number of cases follows a Poisson distribution. The estimated test sensitivity following the first screen was 0.87 (0.83-0.92) in Finland, 0.87 (0.62-1.00) in Sweden, and 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) in the Netherlands. There was some indication of a higher test sensitivity for aggressive cancers (0.85-0.98 for non-organ-confined cases or Gleason 8-10) and for the second screening round (approximately 0.85-0.95). Test sensitivity varied to some extent between the three centers in the European trial, probably reflecting variation in screening protocols, but was acceptable in the first screening round, and may be better for aggressive cancers and in the second screening round. Copyright http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/16359/ 2009-06-01T00:00:00Z Objective To assess whether men newly diagnosed with Gleason 7 prostate cancer are eligible for active surveillance (AS) instead of radical treatment. AS is an appropriate initial strategy in selected men who are presently diagnosed with prostate cancer, as many tumours will not progress during a patient's lifetime. Patients and Methods Cancer-specific-, overall and treatment-free survival were analysed retrospectively in men with Gleason score 7 cancer who were initially managed expectantly. All were screen-detected in four centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Results In 50 men active therapy was initially withheld if they had Gleason 7 disease; 29 of 50 (58%) would otherwise have been suitable for AS, as they had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤10.0 ng/mL, a PSA density of <0.2 ng/mL/mL, stage T1c/T2, and two or fewer positive biopsy-cores; 44 of 50 (88%) had a Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7. The mean (range) age of the men was 69.5 (59.6-76.2) years and the median (interquartile range) follow-up was 2.6 (0.8-5.0) years; the mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 1.8. The 6-year cancer-specific survival (nine patients at risk) was 100%, which sharply contrasted with the 68% overall survival. Men alive at the time of analysis had a favourable PSA level and PSA-doubling time. The 6-year treatment-free survival was only 59%, with most patients switching to active therapy, justified on the basis of their PSA level. However, men with otherwise favourable tumour characteristics and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 remained treatment-free significantly longer than their counterparts with unfavourable other tumour features and a Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7. Conclusion In selected patients with screen-detected Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer, AS might be an option, especially in those with comorbidity and/or a short life-expectancy. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32574/ 2009-03-26T00:00:00Z Background The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer was initiated in the early 1990s to evaluate the effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen(PSA) testing on death rates from prostate cancer. Methods We identified 182,000 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years through registries in seven European countries for inclusion in our study. The men were randomly assigned to a group that was offered PSA screening at an average of once every 4 years or to a control group that did not receive such screening. The predefined core age group for this study included 162,243 men between the ages of 55 and 69 years. The primary outcome was the rate of death from prostate cancer. Mortality follow-up was identical for the two study groups and ended on December 31, 2006. Results In the screening group, 82% of men accepted at least one offer of screening. During a median follow-up of 9 years, the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer was 8.2% in the screening group and 4.8% in the control group. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer in the screening group, as compared with the control group, was 0.80(95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P = 0.04). The absolute risk difference was 0.71 death per 1000 men. This means that 1410 men would need to be screened and 48 additional cases of prostate cancer would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The analysis of men who were actually screened during the first round(excluding subjects with noncompliance) provided a rate ratio for death from prostate cancer of 0.73(95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90). Conclusions PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20% but was associated with a high risk of overdiagnosis.(Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.) Copyright http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14107/ 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14110/ 2008-01-01T00:00:00Z Background: The incidence of small, localised, well-differentiated prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing, mainly as a result of screening. Many of these cancers will not progress, and radical therapy may lead to substantial overtreatment. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an alternative. Objective: To retrospectively validate the currently used criteria for eligibility for AS. Design, setting, and participants: For this cohort study, data from 616 men who were diagnosed with PCa between 1994 and 2007 at a mean age of 66.3 yr in four centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were combined. All patients fit the criteria for AS (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤10.0 ng/ml, PSA-density <0.2 ng/ml per ml, stage T1C/T2, Gleason score ≤3 + 3 = 6, and ≤2 positive biopsy cores), and initially they were managed expectantly. Median follow-up was 3.91 yr. Measurements: Disease specific-, overall-, and treatment-free survival were studied. Present PSA characteristics were assessed and also compared between men who were switching to deferred active therapy during follow-up and men remaining untreated. Results and limitations: The calculated (Kaplan-Meier) 10-yr PCa-specific survival (21 patients at risk) was 100%, which sharply contrasted with 77% overall survival. Men still alive showed favourable PSA characteristics. Although the calculated 10-yr treatment-free survival was only 43%, objective signs of progression often did not indicate the shift to radical treatment. The cohort consisted of men on AS and those on watchful waiting (WW); information on comorbidity or psychological distress was not available. Conclusions: AS seems justified in selected men with screen-detected PCa. Prospective protocol-based AS programs are necessary to optimise selection criteria and to find the appropriate trigger points for switching to active therapy. Possible negative psychological reactions with AS against improved quality of life by withholding side-effects from radical treatment should be considered.