Interval cancers in prostate cancer screening: comparing 2- and 4-year screening intervals in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Gothenburg and Rotterdam
- PMID: 17728218
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm101
Interval cancers in prostate cancer screening: comparing 2- and 4-year screening intervals in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Gothenburg and Rotterdam
Abstract
Background: The incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially since it became common practice to screen asymptomatic men for the disease. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 to determine how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening affects prostate cancer mortality. Variations in the screening algorithm, such as the interval between screening rounds, likely influence the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of the screened population.
Methods: We compared the number and characteristics of interval cancers, defined as those diagnosed during the screening interval but not detected by screening, in men in the screening arm of the ERSPC who were aged 55-65 years at the time of the first screening and were participating through two centers of the ERSPC: Gothenburg (2-year screening interval, n = 4202) and Rotterdam (4-year screening interval, n = 13301). All participants who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through December 31, 2005, but at most 10 years after the initial screening were ascertained by linkage with the national cancer registries. A potentially life-threatening (aggressive) interval cancer was defined as one with at least one of the following characteristics at diagnosis: stage M1 or N1, plasma PSA concentration greater than 20.0 ng/mL, or Gleason score greater than 7. We used Mantel Cox regression to assess differences between rates of interval cancers and aggressive interval cancers at the two centers. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: The 10-year cumulative incidence of all prostate cancers in Rotterdam versus Gothenburg was 1118 (8.41%) versus 552 (13.14%) (P<.001), the cumulative incidence of interval cancer was 57 (0.43%) versus 31 (0.74%) (P = .51), and the cumulative incidence of aggressive interval cancer was 15 (0.11%) versus 5 (0.12%) (P = .72).
Conclusion: The rate of interval cancer, especially aggressive interval cancer, was low in this study. The 2-year screening interval had higher detection rates than the 4-year interval but did not lead to lower rates of interval and aggressive interval prostate cancers.
Comment in
-
Is a screening interval of every 4 years for prostate cancer acceptable?J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Sep 5;99(17):1279-80. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm129. Epub 2007 Aug 28. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007. PMID: 17728212 No abstract available.
-
What is the optimum PSA screening interval after an initial negative test?Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008 Mar;5(3):134-5. doi: 10.1038/ncpuro1038. Epub 2008 Jan 22. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008. PMID: 18212791 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Is it necessary to detect all prostate cancers in men with serum PSA levels <3.0 ng/ml? A comparison of biopsy results of PCPT and outcome-related information from ERSPC.Eur Urol. 2008 May;53(5):901-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.048. Epub 2008 Jan 28. Eur Urol. 2008. PMID: 18262712 Clinical Trial.
-
Towards an optimal interval for prostate cancer screening.Eur Urol. 2012 Jan;61(1):171-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.002. Epub 2011 Aug 10. Eur Urol. 2012. PMID: 21840117 Clinical Trial.
-
Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section Rotterdam).Urology. 2005 Feb;65(2):343-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.046. Urology. 2005. PMID: 15708050
-
Detection of prostate cancer: the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).Can J Urol. 2005 Feb;12 Suppl 1:2-6; discussion 92-3. Can J Urol. 2005. PMID: 15780157 Review.
-
Defining the optimal prostate-specific antigen threshold for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Curr Opin Urol. 2009 May;19(3):227-31. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328329a2d0. Curr Opin Urol. 2009. PMID: 19357513 Review.
Cited by
-
When to Discuss Prostate Cancer Screening With Average-Risk Men.Am J Prev Med. 2021 Aug;61(2):294-298. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.024. Epub 2021 May 6. Am J Prev Med. 2021. PMID: 33966938 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Prostate cancer screening: current status and future perspectives.Nat Rev Urol. 2010 Sep;7(9):487-93. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.120. Nat Rev Urol. 2010. PMID: 20818326 Review.
-
Randomized controlled screening trials for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen: a tale of contrasts.World J Urol. 2012 Apr;30(2):137-42. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0799-4. Epub 2011 Nov 25. World J Urol. 2012. PMID: 22116599 Review.
-
A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009. Epub 2019 Feb 26. Eur Urol. 2019. PMID: 30824296 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Jan;10(1):38-48. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2012.225. Epub 2012 Dec 18. Nat Rev Urol. 2013. PMID: 23247693 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous