Prostate cancer screening - A perspective on the current state of the evidence

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 376, Issue 13, 2017, Pages 1285-1289

  Pinsky, Paul F ^a   Prorok, Philip C ^a   Kramer, Barnett S ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; FOLLOW UP; GENE MUTATION; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMEDIATE RISK POPULATION; MEN'S HEALTH; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SHARED DECISION MAKING; TREND STUDY; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE; UNITED STATES; URINE INCONTINENCE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; BLOOD; DECISION MAKING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS;

DECISION MAKING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85016959663     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1616281     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 120-34.
2. Bell N, Connor Gorber S, Shane A, et al. Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test. CMAJ 2014; 186: 1225-34.
3. Livingston CJ, Freeman RJ, Mohammad A, et al. Choosing Wisely in preventive medicine: the American College of Preventive Medicine's top 5 list of recommendations. Am J Prev Med 2016; 51: 141-9.
4. American Academy of Family Physicians. Prostate cancer: clinical preventive service recommendation. 2012 (http://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/prostate-cancer.html).
5. American Urological Association. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline, 2013 (https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm).
6. Wilt TJ, Harris RP, Qaseem A. Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 718-25.
7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016 (https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/prostate-detection.pdf).
8. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027-35.
9. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125-32.
10. Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K, et al. Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years. Cancer 2017; 123: 592-9.
11. Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Clin Trials 2010; 7: 303-11.
12. Shoag JE, Mittal S, Hu JC. Reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO trial. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1795-6.
13. Pinsky P, Prorok P. More on reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO trial. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1500-1.
14. Cancer Data Access System (CDAS) home page (https://biometry.nci.nih.gov/cdas).
15. Bokhorst LP, Venderbos LD, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ. Do treatment differences between arms affect the main outcome of ERSPC Rotterdam. J Urol 2015; 194: 336-42.
16. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in the large screening trial ERSPC. Int J Cancer 2010; 126: 2387-93.
17. Haines IE, Ablin RJ, Miklos GL. Screening for prostate cancer: time to put all the data on the table. BMJ 2016; 353: i2574.
18. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975-2013 (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2013/).
19. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 762-71.
20. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415-24.
21. Drazer MW, Huo D, Eggener SE. National prostate cancer screening rates after the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation discouraging prostate-specific antigen-based screening. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2416-23.
22. Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations. JAMA 2015; 314: 2054-61.
23. Jemal A, Ma J, Siegel R, Fedewa S, Brawley O, Ward EM. Prostate cancer incidence rates 2 years after the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 1657-60.
24. Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer - lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1685-7.
25. Ruane-McAteer E, Porter S, O'Sullivan JM, Santin O, Prue G. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: is there a greater psychological impact than previously thought? A systematic, mixed studies literature review. Psychooncology 2016 November 15 (Epub ahead of print).