scholarly journals Influence of blood prostate specific antigen levels at age 60 on benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: population based cohort study

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 348 (mar28 1) ◽  
pp. g2296-g2296 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Carlsson ◽  
M. Assel ◽  
D. Sjoberg ◽  
D. Ulmert ◽  
J. Hugosson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Screening Population

scholarly journals Relationship Between Prostate-specific Antigen, Age, and Body Mass Index in a Prostate Cancer Screening Population

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 490-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke E. Pater ◽  
Kimberly W. Hart ◽  
Brian J. Blonigen ◽  
Christopher J. Lindsell ◽  
William L. Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Screening Population

Randomised Trial of Prostate Cancer Screening in the Netherlands: Assessment of Acceptance and Motives for Attendance

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
H G T Nijs ◽  
D M R Tordoir ◽  
J H Schuurman ◽  
W J Kirkels ◽  
F H Schroder
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Personal Benefit ◽  
Screening Procedures

Abstract Objectives— To assess motives for attending a randomised population based prostate cancer screening trial, and to assess acceptance of screening and invitation procedures. Methods— First pilot of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC; 1992/1993). Men aged 55–75 years, randomly selected from the population register of four city districts of Rotterdam, were invited by a single invitation for screening. Screening consisted of prostate specific antigen prescreening followed by either (1) digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and, on indication, biopsy, or (2) no additional screening. After screening, or in the case of non-attendance, a questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 600 attenders and 400 non-attenders, with a reminder after three weeks. Outcome measures— In both attenders and non-attenders: Knowledge of prostate cancer, attitudes towards screening, motives for attending, procedural aspects and sociodemographic characteristics. In attenders, acceptance of screening procedures. Results— The response rate for the questionnaire was 76%: 94% in attenders and 42% in non-attenders. The main reasons for attending were expected personal benefit (76%) and scientific value (39%), and those for not attending were the absence of urological complaints (41%) and anticipated pain or discomfort (24%). Uptake of screening was 32%, which increased to a sustained 42% in following years. Attenders, compared with non-attenders, were significantly younger, more often married, better educated, and had higher perceived health status, more knowledge about prostate cancer, and a more positive attitude towards screening. Information materials and invitation procedure were adequate. Screening procedures were well accepted (high report marks and satisfaction, and 95% would attend for rescreening). A single prostate specific antigen determination was liked less than a combination of all three screening modalities. Conclusions— (1) The main reasons for attending are personal benefit and science, and those for not attending were absence of urological complaints and anticipated pain or discomfort; (2) knowledge, attitudes, and motives for attending are comparable with other screening programmes; hence, for population based prostate cancer screening, known health promotional aspects should be carefully considered; (3) prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound are acceptable to attenders.

The effect of ejaculation on prostate-specific antigen in a prostate cancer-screening population

Urology ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Stenner ◽  
Kerri Holthaus ◽  
Scott H. Mackenzie ◽  
E.David Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Screening Population

scholarly journals Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening in England (1998-2017): a cohort study

2020 ◽  
pp. bjgp20X713957
Author(s):  
Ashley Kieran Clift ◽  
Carol Coupland ◽  
Julia Hippisley-Cox
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Psa Testing

Abstract Background: Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Interpretation of results from trials of screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are complex in terms of defining optimal prostate cancer screening policy. Aims: Assess the rates of, and factors associated with the uptake of PSA testing and opportunistic screening (PSA test in absence of symptoms) in England between 1998 and 2017. Estimate the likely rates of pre-randomisation screening and contamination (unscheduled screening in ‘control’ arm) of the UK-based Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (“CAP”). Design and Setting: Open cohort study of men aged 40-75 years at cohort entry (1998-2017) undertaken using the QResearch database. Method: Eligible men were followed for up to 19-years. Rates of PSA testing and opportunistic PSA screening were calculated and Cox regression was used to estimate associations. Results: The cohort comprised 2,808,477 men, of whom 631,426 had a total of 1,720,855 PSA tests. We identified that 410,751 men had opportunistic PSA screening. Cumulative proportions of uptake of opportunistic screening in the cohort: 10% at 5yrs, 23% at 10yrs, and 44% at 19yrs of follow-up. The potential rate of contamination in the CAP control arm was estimated at 24.5%. Conclusions: A substantial number of men in England opt-in to opportunistic prostate cancer screening despite uncertainty regarding the efficacy and harms. The rate of opportunistic prostate cancer screening in the population is likely to have contaminated the CAP trial making it difficult to interpret the results.

National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (22) ◽  
pp. 2416-2423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Drazer ◽  
Dezheng Huo ◽  
Scott E. Eggener
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Preventive Services ◽  
Population Based

Purpose In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) discouraged prostate-specific antigen (PSA) –based prostate cancer screening. Previous USPSTF recommendations did not appreciably alter prostate cancer screening. Therefore, we designed a trend analysis to determine the population-based impact of the 2012 recommendation. Methods The nationally representative National Health Interview Survey was used to estimate the proportion of men age 40 years and older who saw a physician and were screened for prostate cancer in 2013. An externally validated 9-year mortality index was used to analyze screening rates based on remaining life expectancy. Screening rates from 2005, 2010, and 2013 were compared using logistic regression. Results PSA-based screening did not significantly change from 2010 to 2013 among 40- to 49-year-old men (from 12.5% to 11.2%; P = .4). Screening rates significantly declined in men age 50 to 59 years (from 33.2% to 24.8%; P < .01), age 60 to 74 years (from 51.2% to 43.6%; P < .01), and age 75 years or older (from 43.9% to 37.1%; P = .03). A large percentage of men were screened for prostate cancer despite a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality, including approximately one third of men older than age 75 years. Approximately 1.4 million men age 65 years or older with a high risk (> 52%) of 9-year mortality were screened in 2013. Conclusion Prostate cancer screening significantly declined among men older than age 50 years after the 2012 USPSTF guideline discouraging PSA-based screening. A significant proportion of men continue to be screened despite a high risk of 9-year mortality, including one third of men age 75 years and older.

scholarly journals Sojourn-time-corrected receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for prostate specific antigen (PSA) test in population-based prostate cancer screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Hsuan Jen ◽  
Wei-Jung Chang ◽  
Chen-Yang Hsu ◽  
Amy Ming-Fang Yen ◽  
Anssi Auvinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Roc Curve ◽  
Sojourn Time ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Psa Test ◽  
Receiver Operating

AbstractEvaluating the performance of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in population-based screening with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve often neglects the time dimension. Asymptomatic cases with negative PSA test would have been missed if sojourn time is not taken into account to allow for cases surfacing into the clinical phase. Data included 20,796 men with PSA test at the first screening round was used from population-based Finnish prostate cancer screening trial during 1996–1999. Cancers detected at the first screen, together with interval cancers ascertained during 4-year follow-up were expediently used to estimate sensitivity and specificity. A sojourn-time-corrected model was applied to estimating the possible false negative cases for those with PSA < 4 ng/ml for correcting the ROC curve. The estimated sensitivity estimate was reduced from 94.4% without correction to 68.8% with correction but the estimated specificity was identical (89.4% vs. 89.2%) at cutoff of 3 ng/ml. The corrected area under curve (AUC) [77.0% (74.9–79.1%)] of the PSA test was significantly lower than the uncorrected AUC [95.9% (95.3–96.6%)]. The failure of considering the time since last negative screen due to incomplete ascertainment for asymptomatic cancer led to the overestimation of PSA test performance that further affects the cut-off value of PSA tests for population-based prostate cancer screening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document