4.3 Article

What explains the differences between centres in the European screening trial? A simulation study

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 14-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.11.005

关键词

Longitudinal PSA model; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific antigen; Screening; Simulation model

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [260931]
  2. Competitive Research Fund (Pirkanmaa Hospital District)
  3. Finnish Cancer Organizations
  4. National Technology Agency (TEKES), Finland
  5. National Cancer Institute [01CA160816, P50CA92629, P30CA008748]
  6. Prostate Cancer Foundation at MSKCC
  7. New York, NY, USA
  8. Swedish Cancer Society [11-0624]
  9. Fundacion Federico SA
  10. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  11. AFA Insurance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 4 ng/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. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据