Prostate Cancer Mortality Reduction by Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening Adjusted for Nonattendance and Contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)

Monique Roobol - Bouts, Marjon Kerkhof, Fritz Schröder, J Cuzick, P Sasieni, M Hakama, UH Stenman, S Ciatto, V Nelen, M Kwiatkowski, M Lujan, H Lilja, M Zappa, L Denis, F Recker, A Berenguer, M Ruutu, P Kujala, C.H. Bangma, G AusTLJ Tammela, A Villers, X Rebillard, SM Moss, Harry de Koning, J Hugosson, A Auvinen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

188 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 over diagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)584-591
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume56
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Research programs

  • EMC MM-03-49-01
  • EMC NIHES-02-65-01

Cite this