False-positive screening results in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial
- PMID: 20051951
- PMCID: PMC2822946
- DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605512
False-positive screening results in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial
Abstract
Background: There is evidence that prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum test decreases PC mortality, but screening has adverse effects, such as a high false-positive (FP) rate. We investigated the proportion of FPs in a population-based randomised screening trial in Finland.
Methods: Finland is the largest centre in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We have completed three screening rounds with a 4-year screening interval (mean follow-up time 9.2 years) using a PSA cutoff level of 4.0 ng ml(-1); in addition, men with PSA 3.0-3.9 and a positive auxiliary test were referred. An FP result was defined as a positive screening result without cancer in biopsy within 1 year from the screening test.
Results: The proportion of FP screening results varied from 3.3 to 12.1% per round. Of the screened men, 12.5% had at least one FP during three rounds. The risk of next-round PC following an FP result was 12.3-19.7 vs 1.4-3.7% following a screen-negative result (depending on the screening round), risk ratio 3.6-9.9. More than half of the men with one FP result had another one at a subsequent screen. Men with an FP result were 1.5 to 2.0 times more likely to not participate in subsequent rounds compared with men with a normal screening result (21.6-29.6 vs 14.0-16.7%).
Conclusion: An FP result is a common adverse effect of PC screening and affects at least every eighth man screened repeatedly, even when using a relatively high cutoff level. False-positive men constitute a special group that receives unnecessary interventions but may harbour missed cancers. New strategies are needed for risk stratification in PC screening to minimise the proportion of FP men.
References
-
- Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O’Brien B, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hayes RB, Kramer BS, Izmirlian G, Miller AB, Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK, Berg CD, PLCO Project Team (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360: 1310–1319 - PMC - PubMed
-
- Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, deKernion JB, Ratliff TL, Kavoussi LR, Dalkin BL (1994) Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6630 men. J Urol 151: 1283–1290 - PubMed
-
- Croswell JM, Kramer BS, Kreimer AR, Prorok PC, Xu JL, Baker SG, Fagerstrom R, Riley TL, Clapp JD, Berg CD, Gohagan JK, Andriole GL, Chia D, Church TR, Crawford ED, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Lamerato L, Reding DJ, Schoen RE (2009) Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Ann Fam Med 7: 212–222 - PMC - PubMed
-
- Djavan B, Remzi M, Marberger M (2003) When to biopsy and when to stop biopsying. Urol Clin North Am 30: 253–262 - PubMed
-
- Etzioni RD, Howlader N, Shaw PA, Ankerst DP, Penson DF, Goodman PJ, Thompson IM (2005) Long-term effects of finasteride on prostate specific antigen levels: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Urol 174: 877–881 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous