Search

Objective: To evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others., Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55-69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55-59, 60-64 and 65-69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease., Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55-59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44-1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60-64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77-1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50-1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65-69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56-0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.78) in Sweden., Conclusion: We were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift., (© 2024 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Drugs with histone deacetylase inhibitory (HDACi) properties have shown to decrease prostate cancer (PCa) cell growth in vitro., Methods: A cohort of 9261 PCa cases from the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) was used to evaluate prostate cancer-specific mortality in men using anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). A national subscription database was used to obtain information on medication use. Cox regression with AED use as a time-dependent variable was used to analyse prostate cancer mortality in men using AEDs compared to non-users, and in men using HDACi AEDs compared to users of other AEDs. The analysis was adjusted for age, screening trial arm, PCa risk group, primary treatment of PCa, Charlson co-morbidity score and concomitant use of other drugs., Results: The use of AEDs, in general, was associated with an increased risk of PCa death. The use of HDACi AEDs was not significantly associated with decreased PCa mortality compared to use of other AEDs (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31-1.23)., Conclusions: AED usage is associated with elevated PCa mortality compared to non-users, likely reflecting the differences between men with epilepsy and those without. No benefit was observed from HDACi drugs compared to other AEDs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Screening for prostate cancer may have limited impact on decreasing prostate cancer-related mortality. A major disadvantage is overdiagnosis, whereby lesions are identified that would not have become evident during the man's lifetime if screening had not taken place. The present study aims to estimate the rate of overdiagnosis using Finnish data from the European randomized trial of prostate cancer screening., Methods: We used data from 80,149 men randomized to a screening or a control group, distinguishing four birth cohorts. We used the "catch-up method" to identify when the difference in the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer between the screening and control groups had stabilized, implying that the screening has no further effect. We define the overdiagnosis rate to be the relative excess cumulative incidence in the screened group at that point. As an independent method, we also examined the diagnosis rates of T1c tumors as an indicator of early tumors detected by PSA., Results: The estimates of overdiagnosis rates from the catch-up method using the full period of available follow-up ranged between cohorts from 2.3% to 15.4%, and the T1c analysis gave very similar results., Conclusion: Some overdiagnosis has occurred, but there is uncertainty about its extent. A long follow-up is required to demonstrate the full impact of screening. We evaluated the overdiagnosis rates at a population level, associated with being offered screening, taking account of contamination (screening among the controls). The overall evaluation of screening should incorporate mortality benefit, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Diabetic men have decreased risk for prostate cancer (PCa) overall and lower PSA compared to non-diabetics. This may affect the outcomes of PSA-based screening. We investigated the effect of PSA-based screening at 4-year intervals on PCa incidence and mortality separately among users and non-users of antidiabetic medication with the hypothesis that screening would detect less low-grade cancer and more high-grade cancer in diabetic men. A cohort of 80,458 men from the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) were linked to national prescription database to obtain information on antidiabetic medication purchases. PCa risk and mortality were compared between the FinRSPC screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA) separately among users and non-users of antidiabetic medication. Among antidiabetic medication users median PSA was lower than in non-users (0.93 and 1.09 ng/ml, respectively, P for difference = 0.001). Screening increased overall PCa incidence compared to CA after the first screen both among medication users and non-users (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.60 and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.44-1.66, respectively). On the second and third screen the difference between SA and CA attenuated only among medication users. Detection of Gleason 6 tumors was lower among medication users, whereas no difference was observed in detection of Gleason 8-10 cancers. Concordantly, screening affected PCa mortality similarly regardless of antidiabetic medication use (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.07 and HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.33 among users and non-users after three screens, respectively. P for difference = 0.18). Median PSA is lower in men using antidiabetic drugs than among non-users. Systematic PSA screening detects less low-risk tumors among medication users, whereas detection of high-risk tumors and mortality effects are similar regardless of medication use. This suggests that antidiabetic medication users may form a suitable target group for PCa screening, with less screening-related overdiagnosis of indolent tumors.

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer has shown a 20% reduction in prostate cancer (PC) mortality by prostate-specific antigen-based screening. In addition, screening has been shown to reduce the risk of advanced PC. The objective of the current study was to analyze the impact of screening participation on the incidence of PC by risk group., Methods: The participants in the screening arm of the Finnish trial (31,867 men) were classified according to screening attendance in a time-dependent fashion. Initially, all men in the screening arm were regarded as nonattenders until the first screening attendance; they then remained in the once-screened group until the second screen and similarly for the possible third round. The control arm formed the reference group. Follow-up started at randomization and ended at the time of diagnosis of PC, emigration, or the end of 2015. PC cases were divided into risk groups according to European Association of Urology definitions., Results: The incidence of low-risk PC increased with the number of screens, whereas no clear relation with participation was noted in the intermediate-risk and high-risk cases. For patients with advanced PC, attending screening at least twice was associated with a lower risk., Conclusions: Screening reduces the risk of advanced PC after only 2 screening cycles. A single screen demonstrated no benefit in terms of PC incidence. Repeated screening is necessary to achieve screening advantages., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impacts of PCa screening have not been adequately evaluated. We aimed to compare the generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among men with prostate cancer in the screening arm with the control arm of the PSA-based prostate cancer screening trial in up to 15 years of follow-up., Materials and Methods: This study was conducted within population-based Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC). During 1996-1999 80,458 men were randomized to the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening arm (SA, N = 32 000) and the control arm (CA, N = 48 458). Men in the screening arm were screened at 4-year intervals until 2007. HRQOL questionnaires were delivered to newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in the screening and control arm 1996-2006 (N = 5128) at the time of diagnosis (baseline), at 3-month, 12-month and 5, 10, and 15-year follow-up. Validated UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) and RAND 36-Item Health Survey were used for HRQOL assessment. The data were analyzed with a random effects model for repeated measures., Results: At baseline, men with prostate cancer in the screening arm reported better Sexual Function, as well as less Sexual and Urinary Bother. Long-term follow-up revealed slightly higher HRQOL scores in the screening arm in prostate cancer specific measures at 10-year post diagnosis, but the differences were statistically significant only in Urinary Bother (UCLA-PCI score 77.9; 95% CI 75.2 to 80.5 vs. 70.9; 95% CI 66.8 to 74.9 P = .005). The generic HRQOL scores were comparable between the trial arms. The overall differences in disease-specific or generic HRQOL scores by trial arm did not vary during the follow-up., Conclusion: No major differences were observed in HRQOL in men with prostate cancer between the prostate cancer screening and control arms during five to 15-year follow-up., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In contrast to earlier studies which have used modelling to perform cost-effectiveness analysis, this study links data from a randomised controlled trial with register data from nationwide registries to reveal new evidence on costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of organised mass prostate-cancer screening based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with individual-level data on health-care costs from comprehensive registers and register data on real-world effectiveness from the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC), following 80,149 men from 1996 through 2015. The study examines cost-effectiveness in terms of overall mortality and, in addition, in terms of diagnosed men's mortality from prostate cancer and mortality with but not from prostate cancer. Neither arm of the FinRSPC was clearly more cost-effective in analysis in terms of overall mortality. Organised screening in the FinRSPC could be considered cost-effective in terms of deaths from prostate cancer: averting just over one death per 1000 men screened. However, even with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of below 20,000€ per death avoided, this result should not be considered in isolation. This is because mass screening in this trial also resulted in increases in death with, but not from, prostate cancer: with over five additional deaths per 1000 men screened. Analysis of real-world data from the FinRSPC reveals new evidence of the comparative effectiveness of PSA-based screening after 20 years of follow-up, suggesting the possibility of higher mortality, as well as higher healthcare costs, for screening-arm men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer but who do not die from it. These findings should be corroborated or contradicted by similar analyses using data from other trials, in order to reveal if more diagnosed men have also died in the screening arms of other trials of mass screening for prostate cancer., Competing Interests: PK has taken part in a conference with support from Amgen. Fimlab Laboratories provided support in the form of a salary for PK, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. TT has acted as a consultant for Orion Pharma, Bayer AG, and Ferring and received research funding from Medivation, Pfizer, and Lidds AB. KT has taken part in a conference with support from Astellas and received research funding from Medivation, Astellas, and Pfizer. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Purpose: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality by PSA-based screening. The aim of the study is to evaluate screening effect on prostate cancer incidence and mortality in relation to number of screening rounds attended. Experimental Design: The participants in the screening arm of the Finnish trial (31,867 men) were classified according to screening attendance in a time-dependent fashion. Initially, all men in the screening arm were regarded as nonattenders until the first screening attendance, then remained among the once-screened until the second screen and similarly for the possible third round. The control arm was the reference. Follow-up started at randomization and ended at death, emigration, or end of 2013. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality, as well lung cancer and overall mortality were evaluated., Results: Prostate cancer incidence was increased among screened men, but was not directly related to the number of screening rounds. Prostate cancer mortality was decreased in men screened twice or three times, but did not materially differ in those who did not attend the screening, and in men screened once compared with the control arm. The largest mortality reduction was in men screened three times [HR 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.33]. However, a reduction was also seen in lung cancer (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73) and overall mortality (HR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.52-0.60)., Conclusions: Assuming a similar relative reduction being due to selection bias and screening in prostate cancer as other causes of death (40% reduction), approximately half of the observed prostate cancer mortality reduction by repeated screening is likely to be noncausal and a real screening effect may account for up to 40% reduction in men screened three times. Prostate cancer mortality reduction can only be achieved by repeated screening cycles., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objectives: Few empirical analyses of the impact of organised prostate cancer (PCa) screening on healthcare costs exist, despite cost-related information often being considered as a prerequisite to informed screening decisions. Therefore, we estimate the differences in register-based costs of publicly funded healthcare in the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) after 20 years., Methods: We obtained individual-level register data on prescription medications, as well as inpatient and outpatient care, to estimate healthcare costs for 80,149 men during the first 20 years of the FinRSPC. We compared healthcare costs for the men in each trial arm and performed statistical analysis., Results: For all men diagnosed with PCa during the 20-year observation period, mean PCa-related costs appeared to be around 10% lower in the screening arm (SA). Mean all-cause healthcare costs for these men were also lower in the SA, but differences were smaller than for PCa-related costs alone, and no longer statistically significant. For men dying from PCa, although the difference was not statistically significant, mean all-cause healthcare costs were around 10% higher. When analysis included all observations, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the CA; however, after excluding extreme values, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the SA., Conclusions: No major cost impacts due to screening were apparent, but the FinRSPC's 20-year follow-up period is too short to provide definitive evidence at this stage. Longer term follow-up will be required to be better informed about the costs of, or savings from, introducing mass PCa screening., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify the prognostic factors of prostate cancer death among patients enrolled in a Finnish prostate cancer screening trial., Methods: Data on TNM stage, Gleason score, serum prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, comorbidity and primary treatment were collected from medical records, as well as date and cause of death from Statistics Finland. Four prognostic risk groups were defined based on TNM stage, Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis. Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals for prostate cancer death were calculated using Cox regression and competing-risk analysis with follow up from randomization. The differences in the effects of prognostic factors were assessed using interaction terms., Results: The 15-year survival was significantly lower among cases in the control arm compared with the screening arm (0.90 vs 0.92). However, the survival advantage was limited to screen-detected cases (0.94 vs 0.91 in cases detected outside screening). The prognostic risk group was the strongest factor predicting survival in the control arm, but weaker in screen-detected cases. Advanced disease was associated with substantially poorer outcome in cases detected outside screening than in screen-detected disease. Primary treatment had a similar effect in all groups. Comorbidity had a small prognostic effect in the control arm only., Conclusions: Prognostic factors had a different effect on the outcome of cases detected through screening as those diagnosed otherwise. A high diagnostic prostate-specific antigen and advanced disease carried a poor prognosis, especially among the cases detected outside screening, even when lead-time was eliminated. This shows that the screening resulted in earlier treatment among the cases in the screening arm., (© 2017 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Purpose: Prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen reduces prostate cancer mortality but leads to over diagnosis of indolent prostate cancer. The use of 5α-reductase inhibitors lowers prostate specific antigen and in theory could affect the performance of prostate specific antigen based screening. We evaluated the outcomes of prostate cancer screening in 5α-reductase inhibitors users., Materials and Methods: The study was performed in FinRSPC (Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). Of 80,454 men 31,866 were randomized to be screened at 4-year intervals during 1996 to 2004. Information on 5α-reductase inhibitors reimbursements before prostate cancer during 1995 to 2009 was collected from the national prescription database for 78,615 men. We evaluated the effect of screening on prostate cancer risk and mortality by 5α-reductase inhibitors using Cox regression., Results: Men receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors had higher median prostate specific antigen and were more often screen positive than nonusers. Despite this, screening did not significantly affect prostate cancer detection (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.01) or mortality (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.51-1.32) compared to findings in the control arm among men on 5α-reductase inhibitors. On ROC analysis prostate specific antigen and age did not predict Gleason 7-10 prostate cancer as accurately in 5α-reductase inhibitors users as it did among nonusers (first screening round AUC 0.79 vs 0.88)., Conclusions: Prostate specific antigen based screening among men receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors did not improve the detection of high grade or metastatic prostate cancer, or prevent prostate cancer death., (Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial, although ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) showed a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality. The Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, which is the largest component of ERSPC, demonstrated a statistically nonsignificant 16% mortality benefit in a separate analysis. The purpose of this study was to estimate the degree of contamination in the control arm of the Finnish trial., Materials and Methods: Altogether 48,295 and 31,872 men were randomized to the control and screening arms, respectively. The screening period was 1996 to 2007. The extent of prostate specific antigen testing was analyzed retrospectively using laboratory databases. The incidence of T1c prostate cancer (impalpable prostate cancer detected by elevated prostate specific antigen) was determined from the national Finnish Cancer Registry., Results: Approximately 1.4% of men had undergone prostate specific antigen testing 1 to 3 years before randomization. By the first 4, 8 and 12 years of followup 18.1%, 47.7% and 62.7% of men in the control arm had undergone prostate specific antigen testing at least once and in the screening arm the proportions were 69.8%, 81.1% and 85.2%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of T1c prostate cancer was 6.1% in the screening arm and 4.5% in the control arm (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30)., Conclusions: A large proportion of men in the control arm had undergone a prostate specific antigen test during the 15-year followup. Contamination is likely to dilute differences in prostate cancer mortality between the arms in the Finnish screening trial., (Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) is a multicentre, randomised screening trial on men aged 55-69 years at baseline without known prostate cancer (PrCa) at randomisation to an intervention arm invited to screening or to a control arm. The ERSPC has shown a significant 21% reduction in PrCa mortality at 13 years of follow-up. The effect of screening appears to vary across centres, for which several explanations are possible. We set to assess if the apparent differences in PrCa mortality reduction between the centres can be explained by differences in screening protocols., Methods: We examined the centre differences by developing a simulation model and estimated how alternative screening protocols would have affected PrCa mortality., Results: Our results showed outcomes similar to those observed, when the results by centres were reproduced by simulating the screening regimens with PSA threshold of 3 versus 4ng/ml, or screening interval of two versus four years. The findings suggest that the differences are only marginally attributable to the different screening protocols., Conclusion: The small screening impact in Finland was not explained by the differences in the screening protocols. A possible reason for it was the contamination of and the unexpectedly low PrCa mortality in the Finnish control arm., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries., Methods: Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results., Results: There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening., Conclusions: Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out., Competing Interests: Dr Sigrid Carlsson's work on this paper was supported in part by a Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Cancer Institute made to Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (P30 CA008748). Dr Carlsson is also supported by a post-doctoral grant from AFA Insurance. Dr Carlsson has received travel reimbursement from Sanofi-aventis. No other authors have any conflicts of interest.

Background: Precise cause of death (CoD) ascertainment is crucial in any cancer screening trial to avoid bias from misclassification due to excessive recording of diagnosed cancer as a CoD in death certificates instead of non-cancer disease that actually caused death. We estimated whether there was bias in CoD determination between screening (SA) and control arms (CA) in a population-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening trial., Methods: Our trial is the largest component of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with more than 80,000 men. Randomly selected deaths in men with PCa (N=442/2568 cases, 17.2%) were reviewed by an independent CoD committee. Median follow-up was 16.8 years in both arms., Results: Overdiagnosis of PCa was present in the SA as the risk ratio for PCa incidence was 1.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.24). The hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality was 0.94 (95%CI 0.82-1.08) in favor of the SA. Agreement with official CoD registry was 94.6% (κ=0.88) in the SA and 95.4% (κ=0.91) in the CA. Altogether 14 PCa deaths were estimated as false-positive in both arms and exclusion of these resulted in HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.06)., Conclusions: A small differential misclassification bias in ascertainment of CoD was present, most likely due to attribution bias (overdiagnosis in the SA). Maximum precision in CoD ascertainment can only be achieved with independent review of all deaths in the diseased population. However, this is cumbersome and expensive and may provide little benefit compared to random sampling., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The multicenter European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer (PC) mortality by prostate-specific antigen-based screening, with substantial overdiagnosis. In the present study, we analyzed the incidence of PC after screening in relation to the number of screening rounds attended in the Finnish section of the trial., Objective: To evaluate the possible reduction in PC incidence following completed screening cycles in relation to the number of screening rounds attended., Design, Setting, and Participants: The participants in the screening arm of the Finnish screening trial (29 298 men) were divided into subgroups of men who had participated at one, two, or three screening rounds. A reference group was formed of the 43 151 men in the control arm by selecting age-matched controls for each subgroup of the screening participants. PC cases diagnosed after screening were identified from the Finnish Cancer Registry until the end of 2011. Follow-up of the screened men started 12 mo (365 d) after the last screening attendance and a similar date was assigned to the men in the control arm., Results and Limitations: A total of 1514 new PCs cases (cumulative incidence 5.2%) were diagnosed among the screened men after the last screening attendance. In the reference group formed from the control arm, 2683 cases (6.2%) occurred. The hazard ratio (HR) for PC among nonparticipants in the screening arm was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99) compared with their controls. Among participants, the HR in those who participated once was 1.39 (95% CI 1.22-1.57), among men who participated twice the HR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.86-1.10), and among men screened three times the HR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.68). A limitation of the study was that the comparison by attendance is not based on randomization., Conclusions: The postscreening PC incidence is reduced after attending three screening rounds, but not after only one or two rounds. Thus, the increased cancer detection at screening is compensated by a subsequent risk reduction only after repeated screening cycles., Patient Summary: The results of the study indicate that at least three prostate-specific antigen-based screening cycles are needed to reduce subsequent prostate cancer incidence., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Anticoagulants may reduce mortality of cancer patients, though the evidence remains controversial. We studied the association between different anticoagulants and cancer death.Methods: All anticoagulant use during 1995-2015 was analyzed among 75,336 men in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Men with prevalent cancer were excluded. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to compare risk of death from any cancer and disease-specific death from 9 specific cancer types between (1) anticoagulant users overall and (2) warfarin users compared to anticoagulant non-users and (3) warfarin or (4) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) compared to users of other anticoagulants. Medication use was analyzed as time-dependent variable to minimize immortal time bias. 1-, 2- and 3-year lag-time analyses were performed.Results: During a median follow-up of 17.2 years, a total of 27,233 men died of whom 8033 with cancer as the primary cause of death. In total, 32,628 men (43%) used anticoagulants. Any anticoagulant use was associated with an increased risk of cancer death (HR = 2.50, 95% CI 2.37-2.64) compared to non-users. Risk was similar independent of the amount, duration, or intensity of use. The risk increase was observed both among warfarin and LMWH users, although not as strong in warfarin users. Additionally, cancer-specific risks of death were similar to overall cancer mortality in all anticoagulant categories.Conclusion: Our study does not support reduced cancer mortality among anticoagulant users. Future studies on drug use and cancer mortality should be adjusted for anticoagulants as they are associated with significantly higher risk of cancer death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]