Advertisement

ERSPC, PLCO Studies and Critique of Cochrane Review 2013

  • Fritz H. SchröderEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 202)

Abstract

Screening for prostate cancer by use of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In the recent Cochrane analysis, an attempt is made to clarify the issue by conducting a meta analysis of available randomized screening trials. Two large trials are considered to provide data of similar and sufficient quality to conduct a separate meta analysis. However, in the view of this author, this analysis fails because standard Cochrand quality criteria are not observed. Details are given and the outcome suggests that one of the trials, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) should be considered superior to the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovary screening trial (PLCO) conducted in the USA.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Prostate Specific Antigen Cancer Detection Rate Screening Trial Contamination Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ciatto S, Zappa M, Villers A, Paez A, Otto SJ, Auvinen A (2003) Contamination by opportunistic screening in the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 92(2):97–100Google Scholar
  2. Grubb RL 3rd, Pinsky PF, Greenlee RT, Izmirlian G et al (2008) Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int 102(11):1524–1530Google Scholar
  3. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA (2011) Cochrane bias methods group; cochrane statistical methods group. BMJ 18(343):d5928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P (2013) Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004720Google Scholar
  6. Pinsky PF, Black A, Parnes HL, Grubb R, Crawford DE, Miller A, Reding D, Andriole G (2012) Prostate cancer specific survival in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol 36(6):e401–e406PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M, Schröder FH, Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis L, Recker F, Berenguer A, Ruutu M, Kujala P, Bangma CH, Aus G, Tammela TL, Villers A, Rebillard X, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Hugosson J, Auvinen A (2009) Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 56(4):584–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ (2012) Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 366:981–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations