Prostate cancer screening and the management of clinically localized disease - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Prostate cancer screening and the management of clinically localized disease

Timothy J Wilt et al. BMJ. 2013.

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: HUA is co-principal investigator in several investigator led diagnostic and focal therapy trials in prostate cancer supported by the MRC (UK), National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Pelican Cancer Foundation charity, and Prostate Cancer UK charity; HUA receives funding from USHIFU and Advanced Medical Diagnostics for clinical trials; HUA has received consultancy payments in the past from Steba Biotech and Oncura/GE Healthcare and payment for conference travel from USHIFU; TJW is a volunteer member of the US Preventive Services Task Force and chairman of the Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).

Figures

None

Fig 1 Impact of age on the proportion of men found to have an abnormal serum prostate specific antigen concentration depending on threshold used. The bars represent the 10 year risk of a prostate cancer related death in each age group

None

Fig 2 Forest plot showing the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals from the two (of five) randomized prostate cancer screening trials judged to be at least “fair methodological quality” and of “low risk of bias” (PLCO and ERSPC). The vertical line represents no benefit

None

Fig 3 Benefits and harms of screening men aged 55-69 years* with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test every 1-4 years for 10 years. Calculations rely on assumptions and are imprecise. Estimates should be considered in the full context of clinical decision making and used to stimulate shared decision making

None

Fig 4 Kaplan-Meier curves showing death from any cause and death from prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) comparing radical prostatectomy with observation

None

Fig 5 Forest plots demonstrating subgroup effects (hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals and P value for interaction) in the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) comparing radical prostatectomy with observation. The vertical line indicates no effect. The size of the boxes indicates the weight of the effects

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cancer Research UK. Prostate cancer statistics. 2012. www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/prostate/.
    1. Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1325-9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilt TJ, Thompson IM. Clinically localised prostate cancer. BMJ 2006;333:1102-6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1132-7. - PubMed
    1. Zhu X, Albertsen PC, Andriole GL, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Vickers AJ. Risk-based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 2012;61:652-61. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources