Boost For Prostate Cancer Screening - Report Shows Mortality Reduction As High As 31%
Main Category: Prostate / Prostate CancerAlso Included In: Urology / Nephrology; Men's health; Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 09 Dec 2009 - 1:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
5 (2 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
5 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
The effectiveness of PSA (prostate-specific antigen) screening on reducing prostate cancer mortality has been given a boost with new data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). This shows the true impact to be far higher than previously reported up to 31%.
Preliminary ERSPC findings showed that screening reduced prostate cancer deaths by 20%. This latest ERSPC analysis corrects for non-attendance and contamination to assess the effectiveness of PSA testing in those men actually screened
From 1992, the ERSPC study randomized 162,000 men, aged 55 to 69, in seven European countries to either a screening arm or a control group. Those screened were given a blood test to detect PSA levels: if it was 3.0ng/ml or more, they were offered a biopsy. Screening took place on average every four years. Mean follow-up was nine years.
In any randomized trial, some in the screening arm do not attend and some in the control group inadvertently receive a PSA test (contamination). Contamination makes it difficult to detect differences. This is believed to be one reason why the Prostate Lung, Colon and Ovarian (PLCO) study failed to detect any significant reduction in mortality.
PSA cut off level of 3ng/ml is safer threshold for reducing biopsies
Using retrospective data from the Dutch arm, the ERSPC has shown that using a screening algorithm - an individual risk assessment - alongside PSA testing can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. PSA testing is sensitive but not specific, so elevated levels do not necessarily imply cancer. Approximately 30% of detected cancers are non-aggressive - 'indolent' or slow growing.
Their findings, published in January 2010's European Urology suggest that a PSA cut off level of 3ng/ml combined with an individual risk assessment would reduce biopsies by 33%. The majority of cancers potentially missed would be indolent, so there would be no benefit from active treatment. Increasing the PSA cut-off level from 3 to 4 ng/ml may save a similar number of biopsies, but will miss more clinically significant cancers.
Source: European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
Visit our prostate / prostate cancer section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/173341.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/173341.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
PSA Screening Absolutely Essential.
posted by Bill McIntosh on 24 Dec 2009 at 12:18 pmAs one who considers his life was almost certainly saved as a result of PSA screening and subsequent biopsy, I very much welcome this opinion and would urge its widespread circulation in an endeavour to combat the comments by those who are carried away by over-simplistic statistics and feel that it's not worth the trouble and expense of carrying out - say 1400 - PSA tests merely to save one life. As the owner of one such life, I am afraid I, and my wife, children and friends, profoundly disagree.
When I say 'over-simplistic statistics', I am referring not only to the shortcomings in previous examinations referred to in the ERSPC study, but also the assumption in their conclusions that all of those who were tested and subsequently died were given the best possible advice and treatment. This, I would suggest, judging by my own experience, is extremely unlikely to have been the case. It is now over six years since I was diagnosed as having an extremely aggressive condition - in respect of which my consultant oncologist advised me that I was very unlikely to survive five years. Both before and during this period there has been a continuous flow of reports by reputable research organisations confirming that diet - such as the exclusion of red meat and dairy products, inclusion of fresh fruit and vegetables, pomegranate juice, soya products, cruciferous vegetables etc. - is extremely important in the onset and development of Prostate Cancer, yet not once throughout this period have I heard any of these recommendations or even the word 'diet' mentioned by any of the many consultants, specialist staff, etc. whom I attended throughout this time. Indeed, even to obtain any advice on the subject, from qualified medical staff was like drawing teeth.
Even the orthodox treatment I received, although no doubt the best available in my area was, due to financial and other constraints was certainly not the best availble at the time. In the circumstances, if these shortcomings could be corrected, I suspect rhe statistics would tell an entirely different tale.
Bill McIntosh
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



