Search

Background: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction.Objective: To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO.Design: Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models.Setting: Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States.Participants: Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization.Intervention: Prostate cancer screening.Measurements: Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began.Results: Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening.Limitation: The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up.Conclusion: After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have increased rapidly in the United States and much of western Europe, and 5-year survival continues to be poor. 1 Prevention and early detection efforts for EAC have focused on identifying persons with EAC precursor state, Barrett's esophagus, but the survival benefit has been disappointingly low., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates., Methods: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials., Results: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0., Conclusions: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)