http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/26575/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl 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/34720/ 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z Background: The rate of decrease in advanced cancers is an estimate for determining prostate cancer (PCa) screening program effectiveness. Objective: Assess the effectiveness of PCa screening programs using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval. Design, setting, and participants: Men aged 55-64 yr were participants at two centers of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer: Gothenburg, Sweden (2-yr screening interval, n = 4202), and Rotterdam, the Netherlands (4-yr screening interval, n = 13 301). We followed participants until the date of PCa, the date of death, or the last follow-up at December 31, 2008, or up to a maximum of 12 yr after initial screening. Potentially life-threatening (advanced) cancer was defined as cancer with at least one of following characteristics: clinical stage ≥T3a, M1, or N1; serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20.0 ng/ml; or Gleason score ≥8 at biopsy. Intervention: We compared the proportional total (advanced) cancer incidence (screen-detected and interval cases), defined as the ratio of the observed number of (advanced) cancers to the expected numbers of (advanced) cancers based on the control arm of the study. Measurements: The proportional cancer incidence from the second screening round until the end of observation was compared using a 2- or 4-yr screening interval. Results and limitations: From screening round 2 until the end of observation, the proportional cancer incidence was 3.64 in Gothenburg and 3.08 in Rotterdam (relative risk [RR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.33; p = 0.009). The proportional advanced cancer incidence was 0.40 in Gothenburg and 0.69 in Rotterdam (RR: 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; p = 0.048); the RR for detection of low-risk PCa was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p < 0.001). This study was limited by the assumption that PSA testing in the control arm was similar in both centers. Conclusions: A 2-yr screening interval significantly reduced the incidence of advanced PCa; however, the 2-yr interval increased the overall risk of being diagnosed with (low-risk) PCa compared with a 4-yr interval in men aged 55-64 yr. Individualized screening algorithms must be improved to provide the strategy for this issue. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21391/ 2010-11-01T00:00:00Z 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. 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/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/35968/ 2007-03-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND. Although serum PSA testing is widely used as a screening test for prostate cancer (PC), it is known that it is not specific for PC. The study described here focuses on the value of screening tests next to PSA in identifying men with an elevated risk of having PC and the differences between three centers of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). METHODS. The study population consists of 2,483 men with a PSA ≥4.0 ng/ml, all biopsied. We assessed data on age, serum PSA level at initial and repeat screening, prostate volume, number of positive DRE and TRUS findings, number of previous negative biopsies, and PPV of the three centers and overall. Using logistic regression analysis, predictors for biopsy outcome at repeat screening in men with a PSA value ≥4.0 ng/ml were determined on the complete dataset and per center. RESULTS. In 2,483 men biopsied, 665 cancers were detected (PPV = 26.8%). Data show that all predictors except prostate volume loose their predictive value in men previously biopsied. In men not previously biopsied, the predictive value of DRE and TRUS vary considerably among the three centers. CONCLUSIONS. Looking at the differences in the predictive value of screening tests in three "comparable" centers, generasibility is not as straightforward as it seems. Using a nomogram for predictive purposes developed elsewhere will require a thorough knowledge of the patient population of which it is derived, and one should interpret its results with a critical mind.