Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Absolute effect of prostate cancer screening: balance of benefits and harms by center within the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening


Auvinen, Anssi; Moss, Sue M; Tammela, Teuvo L J; Taari, Kimmo; Roobol, Monique J; Schröder, Fritz H; Bangma, Chris H; Carlsson, Sigrid; Aus, Gunnar; Zappa, Marco; Puliti, Donella; Denis, Louis J; Nelen, Vera; Kwiatkowski, Maciej; Randazzo, Marco; Paez, Alvaro; Lujan, Marcos; Hugosson, Jonas (2016). Absolute effect of prostate cancer screening: balance of benefits and harms by center within the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening. Clinical Cancer Research, 22(1):243-249.

Abstract

PURPOSE The balance of benefits and harms in prostate cancer screening has not been sufficiently characterized. We related indicators of mortality reduction and overdetection by center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening (ERSPC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN We analyzed the absolute mortality reduction expressed as number needed to invite (NNI = 1/absolute risk reduction; indicating how many men had to be randomized to screening arm to avert a prostate cancer death) for screening and the absolute excess of prostate cancer detection as number needed for overdetection (NNO = 1/absolute excess incidence; indicating the number of men invited per additional prostate cancer case), and compared their relationship across the seven ERSPC centers. RESULTS Both absolute mortality reduction (NNI) and absolute overdetection (NNO) varied widely between the centers: NNI, 200-7,000 and NNO, 16-69. Extent of overdiagnosis and mortality reduction was closely associated [correlation coefficient, r = 0.76; weighted linear regression coefficient, β = 33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 5-62; R (2) = 0.72]. For an averted prostate cancer death at 13 years of follow-up, 12 to 36 excess cases had to be detected in various centers. CONCLUSIONS The differences between the ERSPC centers likely reflect variations in prostate cancer incidence and mortality, as well as in screening protocol and performance. The strong interrelation between the benefits and harms suggests that efforts to maximize the mortality effect are bound to increase overdiagnosis and might be improved by focusing on high-risk populations. The optimal balance between screening intensity and risk of overdiagnosis remains unclear. Clin Cancer Res; 1-7. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract

PURPOSE The balance of benefits and harms in prostate cancer screening has not been sufficiently characterized. We related indicators of mortality reduction and overdetection by center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening (ERSPC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN We analyzed the absolute mortality reduction expressed as number needed to invite (NNI = 1/absolute risk reduction; indicating how many men had to be randomized to screening arm to avert a prostate cancer death) for screening and the absolute excess of prostate cancer detection as number needed for overdetection (NNO = 1/absolute excess incidence; indicating the number of men invited per additional prostate cancer case), and compared their relationship across the seven ERSPC centers. RESULTS Both absolute mortality reduction (NNI) and absolute overdetection (NNO) varied widely between the centers: NNI, 200-7,000 and NNO, 16-69. Extent of overdiagnosis and mortality reduction was closely associated [correlation coefficient, r = 0.76; weighted linear regression coefficient, β = 33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 5-62; R (2) = 0.72]. For an averted prostate cancer death at 13 years of follow-up, 12 to 36 excess cases had to be detected in various centers. CONCLUSIONS The differences between the ERSPC centers likely reflect variations in prostate cancer incidence and mortality, as well as in screening protocol and performance. The strong interrelation between the benefits and harms suggests that efforts to maximize the mortality effect are bound to increase overdiagnosis and might be improved by focusing on high-risk populations. The optimal balance between screening intensity and risk of overdiagnosis remains unclear. Clin Cancer Res; 1-7. ©2015 AACR.

Statistics

Citations

9 citations in Web of Science®
6 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

49 downloads since deposited on 27 Nov 2015
45 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Urological Clinic
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2016
Deposited On:27 Nov 2015 09:18
Last Modified:08 Aug 2017 19:16
Publisher:American Association for Cancer Research
ISSN:1078-0432
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0941
PubMed ID:26289069

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 107kB
View at publisher

Article Networks

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations