TY - JOUR
T1 - Screening for prostate cancer
T2 - A review of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force
AU - Chou, Roger
AU - Croswell, Jennifer M.
AU - Dana, Tracy
AU - Bougatsos, Christina
AU - Blazina, Ian
AU - Fu, Rongwei
AU - Gleitsmann, Ken
AU - Koenig, Helen C.
AU - Lam, Clarence
AU - Maltz, Ashley
AU - Rugge, J. Bruin
AU - Lin, Kenneth
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Background: Screening can detect prostate cancer at earlier, asymptomatic stages, when treatments might be more effective. Purpose: To update the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence reviews on screening and treatments for prostate cancer. Data Sources: MEDLINE (2002 to July 2011) and the Cochrane Library Database (through second quarter of 2011). Study Selection: Randomized trials of prostate-specific antigen- based screening, randomized trials and cohort studies of prostatectomy or radiation therapy versus watchful waiting, and large observational studies of perioperative harms. Data Extraction: Investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria. Data Synthesis: Of 5 screening trials, the 2 largest and highest-quality studies reported conflicting results. One found that screening was associated with reduced prostate cancer- specific mortality compared with no screening in a subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years after 9 years (relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.07 percentage point). The other found no statistically significant effect after 10 years (relative risk, 1.1 [CI, 0.80 to 1.5]). After 3 or 4 screening rounds, 12% to 13% of screened men had falsepositive results. Serious infections or urine retention occurred after 0.5% to 1.0% of prostate biopsies. There were 3 randomized trials and 23 cohort studies of treatments. One good-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with watchful waiting through 13 years of follow-up (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.44 to 0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.1%). Benefits seemed to be limited to men younger than 65 years. Treating approximately 3 men with prostatectomy or 7 men with radiation therapy instead of watchful waiting would each result in 1 additional case of erectile dysfunction. Treating approximately 5 men with prostatectomy would result in 1 additional case of urinary incontinence. Prostatectomy was associated with perioperative death (about 0.5%) and cardiovascular events (0.6% to 3%), and radiation therapy was associated with bowel dysfunction. Limitations: Only English-language articles were included. Few studies evaluated newer therapies. Conclusion: Prostate-specific antigen-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
AB - Background: Screening can detect prostate cancer at earlier, asymptomatic stages, when treatments might be more effective. Purpose: To update the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence reviews on screening and treatments for prostate cancer. Data Sources: MEDLINE (2002 to July 2011) and the Cochrane Library Database (through second quarter of 2011). Study Selection: Randomized trials of prostate-specific antigen- based screening, randomized trials and cohort studies of prostatectomy or radiation therapy versus watchful waiting, and large observational studies of perioperative harms. Data Extraction: Investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria. Data Synthesis: Of 5 screening trials, the 2 largest and highest-quality studies reported conflicting results. One found that screening was associated with reduced prostate cancer- specific mortality compared with no screening in a subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years after 9 years (relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.07 percentage point). The other found no statistically significant effect after 10 years (relative risk, 1.1 [CI, 0.80 to 1.5]). After 3 or 4 screening rounds, 12% to 13% of screened men had falsepositive results. Serious infections or urine retention occurred after 0.5% to 1.0% of prostate biopsies. There were 3 randomized trials and 23 cohort studies of treatments. One good-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with watchful waiting through 13 years of follow-up (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.44 to 0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.1%). Benefits seemed to be limited to men younger than 65 years. Treating approximately 3 men with prostatectomy or 7 men with radiation therapy instead of watchful waiting would each result in 1 additional case of erectile dysfunction. Treating approximately 5 men with prostatectomy would result in 1 additional case of urinary incontinence. Prostatectomy was associated with perioperative death (about 0.5%) and cardiovascular events (0.6% to 3%), and radiation therapy was associated with bowel dysfunction. Limitations: Only English-language articles were included. Few studies evaluated newer therapies. Conclusion: Prostate-specific antigen-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81855206806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81855206806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375
DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21984740
AN - SCOPUS:81855206806
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 155
SP - 762
EP - 771
JO - Annals of Internal Medicine
JF - Annals of Internal Medicine
IS - 11
ER -