Variation in harms and benefits of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio‐clinical risk factors: A rapid review
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo Open Access |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1867020915741556736 |
|---|---|
| author | Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs |
| author_facet | Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Variation in harms and benefits of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio‐clinical risk factors: A rapid review Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs BJUI Compass AbstractObjectiveTo analyse the latest evidence on the relative harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic pathways with close examination of (i) men aged 50 years or older, (ii) men whose ethnicity places them at higher risk and (iii) men with a family history.MethodsWe conducted a literature search using PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and other sources, from January 1990 to 25 January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria.ResultsTwenty‐eight articles were selected, from six trials, including the Göteborg trial—reported separately from European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate‐specific antigen (PSA)‐based screening led to the increased detection of low‐grade cancer and reduction of advanced/metastatic disease but had contradictory effects on prostate cancer (PCa)‐specific mortality (no difference or reduced), possibly due to issues of contamination or compliance. Screening men from a relatively young age (50–55) reduced risk of PCa‐specific mortality in a subanalysis of an 18‐year follow‐up study and in a 17‐year cohort study from the main Göteborg trial. Moreover, one Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial analysis reported a trend of reduced risk of PCa‐specific mortality for men with a family history who were screened. [Correction added on 05 March 2024, after first online publication: “Cancer Screening Trial” has been added to the preceding sentence.] However, we did not find relevant studies for ethnicity.ConclusionUnder current UK practice, the choice to conduct a PSA test relies on a shared decision‐making approach guided by known risk factors. However, we found there was a lack of strong evidence on the harms and benefits of PSA screening by socio‐clinical risk factors and suggest further research is required to understand the long‐term impact of screening on high‐risk populations in the current diagnostic setting. 10.1002/bco2.326 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bco2.326 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_bco2_326 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Variation in harms and benefits of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio‐clinical risk factors: A rapid review Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs BJUI Compass Variation in harms and benefits of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio‐clinical risk factors: A rapid review Abel Tesfai Natalia Norori Thomas A. Harding Yui Hang Wong Matthew David Hobbs BJUI Compass AbstractObjectiveTo analyse the latest evidence on the relative harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic pathways with close examination of (i) men aged 50 years or older, (ii) men whose ethnicity places them at higher risk and (iii) men with a family history.MethodsWe conducted a literature search using PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and other sources, from January 1990 to 25 January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria.ResultsTwenty‐eight articles were selected, from six trials, including the Göteborg trial—reported separately from European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate‐specific antigen (PSA)‐based screening led to the increased detection of low‐grade cancer and reduction of advanced/metastatic disease but had contradictory effects on prostate cancer (PCa)‐specific mortality (no difference or reduced), possibly due to issues of contamination or compliance. Screening men from a relatively young age (50–55) reduced risk of PCa‐specific mortality in a subanalysis of an 18‐year follow‐up study and in a 17‐year cohort study from the main Göteborg trial. Moreover, one Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial analysis reported a trend of reduced risk of PCa‐specific mortality for men with a family history who were screened. [Correction added on 05 March 2024, after first online publication: “Cancer Screening Trial” has been added to the preceding sentence.] However, we did not find relevant studies for ethnicity.ConclusionUnder current UK practice, the choice to conduct a PSA test relies on a shared decision‐making approach guided by known risk factors. However, we found there was a lack of strong evidence on the harms and benefits of PSA screening by socio‐clinical risk factors and suggest further research is required to understand the long‐term impact of screening on high‐risk populations in the current diagnostic setting. 10.1002/bco2.326 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| title | Variation in harms and benefits of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio‐clinical risk factors: A rapid review |
| topic | BJUI Compass |
| url | https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.326 |