Biochemical progression rates in the screen arm compared to the control arm of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)

Stijn Roemeling*, Monique J Roobol, Claartje Gosselaar, Fritz H Schröder

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) investigates the feasibility of population-based screening. This report compares the preliminary outcome of cancers detected in the screen and the control arm of its Rotterdam section, by means of biochemical progression rates.

METHODS: In the screen arm of this study (21,210 men), screening was applied according to well-established protocols, and a 4-year screen interval was chosen. Widely accepted biochemical progression-criteria were used to evaluate the diagnosed cancers over time.

RESULTS: Although more cancers were detected in the screen than in the control arm (1,339 vs. 298, P < 0.001), their clinico-pathological features were more favorable. Furthermore, screened men had higher 5-year survival rates for biochemical progression after surgery (84.4% vs. 58.9% in controls), radiotherapy (71.0% vs. 58.0%), and endocrine therapy (40.5% vs. 16.3%).

CONCLUSIONS: The higher biochemical progression-free survival can at least in part be explained by lead and length-time. How screening will effect the mortality remains unclear.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1076-81
Number of pages6
JournalProstate
Volume66
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1-Jul-2006
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Aged
  • Biomarkers, Tumor/blood
  • Biopsy
  • Disease Progression
  • Europe/epidemiology
  • Humans
  • Incidence
  • Male
  • Mass Screening/methods
  • Middle Aged
  • Prognosis
  • Prostate/pathology
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood
  • Prostatectomy
  • Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis
  • Radiotherapy
  • Risk Factors
  • Survival Rate
  • Time Factors

Cite this