scholarly journals Updated results from the European Randomized Study of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Screening for Prostate Cancer: are Asian countries encouraged to promote PSA screening?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikio Sugimoto ◽  
Yoshiyuki Kakehi
2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Edward F. Vonesh ◽  
E. Jeffrey Metter ◽  
H. Ballentine Carter ◽  
Peter H. Gann ◽  
...  

Purpose The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 20% mortality reduction with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. However, they estimated a number needed to screen (NNS) of 1,410 and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 to prevent one prostate cancer death at 9 years. Although NNS and NNT are useful statistics to assess the benefits and harms of an intervention, in a survival study setting such as the ERSPC, NNS and NNT are time specific, and reporting values at one time point may lead to misinterpretation of results. Our objective was to re-examine the effect of varying follow-up times on NNS and NNT using data extrapolated from the ERSPC report. Materials and Methods On the basis of published ERSPC data, we modeled the cumulative hazard function using a piecewise exponential model, assuming a constant hazard of 0.0002 for the screening and control groups for years 1 to 7 of the trial and different constant rates of 0.00062 and 0.00102 for the screening and control groups, respectively, for years 8 to 12. Annualized cancer detection and drop-out rates were also approximated based on the observed number of individuals at risk in published ERSPC data. Results According to our model, the NNS and NNT at 9 years were 1,254 and 43, respectively. Subsequently, NNS decreased from 837 at year 10 to 503 at year 12, and NNT decreased from 29 to 18. Conclusion Despite the seemingly simplistic nature of estimating NNT, there is widespread misunderstanding of its pitfalls. With additional follow-up in the ERSPC, if the mortality difference continues to grow, the NNT to save a life with PSA screening will decrease.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 359
Author(s):  
Takahiro Kimura ◽  
Shun Sato ◽  
Hiroyuki Takahashi ◽  
Shin Egawa

The incidence of prostate cancer (PC) has been increasing in Asian countries, where it was previously low. Although the adoption of a Westernized lifestyle is a possible explanation, the incidence is statistically biased due to the increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the accuracy of national cancer registration systems. Studies on latent PC provide less biased information. This review included studies evaluating latent PC in several countries after excluding studies using random or single-section evaluations and those that did not mention section thickness. The findings showed that latent PC prevalence has been stable since 1950 in Western countries, but has increased over time in Asian countries. Latent PC in Asian men has increased in both prevalence and number of high-grade cases. Racial differences between Caucasian and Asian men may explain the tumor location of latent PC. In conclusion, the recent increase in latent PC in Asian men is consistent with an increase in clinical PC. Evidence suggests that this increase is caused not only by the increase in PSA screening, but also by the adoption of a more Westernized lifestyle. Autopsy findings suggest the need to reconsider the definition of clinically insignificant PC.


2005 ◽  
Vol 117 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 457-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Vutuc ◽  
Eva S. Schernhammer ◽  
Gerald Haidinger ◽  
Thomas Waldhör

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (8) ◽  
pp. 722-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus V. Sadi

Summary Screening of prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a highly controversial issue. One part of the controversy is due to the confusion between population screening and early diagnosis, another derives from problems related to the quality of existing screening studies, the results of radical curative treatment for low grade tumors and the complications resulting from treatments that affect the patient’s quality of life. Our review aimed to critically analyze the current recommendations for PSA testing, based on new data provided by the re-evaluation of the ongoing studies and the updated USPSTF recommendation statement, and to propose a more rational and selective use of PSA compared with baseline values obtained at an approximate age of 40 to 50 years.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5155-5155
Author(s):  
J. H. Hayes ◽  
M. J. Barry ◽  
P. W. Kantoff ◽  
J. E. Stahl

5155 Background: PSA-based screening has been widely adopted in the US although a mortality benefit has yet to be demonstrated. The disutility of screening and quality of life of men diagnosed and treated after screening are critical issues in assessing its benefit and harm. The purpose of this model is to estimate the effect of one-time screening for prostate cancer using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and DRE (digital rectal exam) on life expectancy (LE) and Quality Adjusted Life Expectancy (QALE) in the context of current diagnostic and treatment practice. Methods: A semi-Markov state transition simulation describes the relevant health states. Two strategies were compared: 1) Screening - single screening PSA and DRE; 2) No Screening - patients diagnosed after developing symptoms. Markov cycle length was 1 year. Transition probabilities and utility weights were developed from review of the literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all parameters. A PSA threshold of 4 ng/mL and age 65 were used for the base case. The model was created using TreeAge software. Results: For our base case, a single screening conferred a LE benefit of 0.37 y (15.86 vs 15.49 y) and a QALE benefit of 0.20 QALYs (15.62 vs 15.42 QALYs). Predicted 10 y cancer specific survival for screen-diagnosed men was 95.7% vs SEER 97.7%. The model predicted 9.5% of screened patients would have metastatic disease at diagnosis vs 5% in SEER (4% unknown stage); in unscreened men, this rate was 18/100,000 vs 15/100,000 in SEER. Sensitivity Analyses of Utilities (SA): The single screen model was relatively insensitive to SA of utilities: a 20% single cycle toll on one-time PSA screening disutility was required to eliminate the benefit of screening. The disutility of positive PSA with negative biopsy slightly affected QALE: a toll of 0.25 QALYs decreased QALE from 15.62 to 15.61 QALYs. Conclusions: Our model reveals a modest benefit to one-time screening for prostate cancer. This one-time screening model is relatively insensitive to utility SA; however, the importance of incorporating psychological effects of PSA screening in recurrent screening is to be determined. The impact of serial screening, lead time, PSA threshold, and cost effectiveness on LE and QALE is being analyzed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document