Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial
<p><strong>Importance</strong> Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment.</p> <p><strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate the effec...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Journal article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
American Medical Association
2018
|
_version_ | 1811139834947829760 |
---|---|
author | Martin, RM Donovan, JL Turner, EL Metcalfe, C Young, GJ Walsh, EI Lane, JA Noble, S Oliver, SE Evans, S Sterne, JAC Holding, P Ben-Shlomo, Y Brindle, P Williams, NJ Hill, EM Ng, SY Toole, J Tazewell, MK Hughes, LJ Davies, CF Thorn, JC Down, E Davey Smith, G Neal, DE Hamdy, FC CAP Trial Group |
author_facet | Martin, RM Donovan, JL Turner, EL Metcalfe, C Young, GJ Walsh, EI Lane, JA Noble, S Oliver, SE Evans, S Sterne, JAC Holding, P Ben-Shlomo, Y Brindle, P Williams, NJ Hill, EM Ng, SY Toole, J Tazewell, MK Hughes, LJ Davies, CF Thorn, JC Down, E Davey Smith, G Neal, DE Hamdy, FC CAP Trial Group |
author_sort | Martin, RM |
collection | OXFORD |
description | <p><strong>Importance</strong> Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment.</p>
<p><strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer–specific mortality.</p>
<p><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants</strong> The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>Intervention</strong> An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice.</p>
<p><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures</strong> Primary outcome: prostate cancer–specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic.</p>
<p><strong>Results</strong> Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, −0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, −0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66).</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions and Relevance</strong> Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening.</p> |
first_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:14:55Z |
format | Journal article |
id | oxford-uuid:8e531540-5733-481a-9e7b-d0648070e8d6 |
institution | University of Oxford |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:12:23Z |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | American Medical Association |
record_format | dspace |
spelling | oxford-uuid:8e531540-5733-481a-9e7b-d0648070e8d62024-06-28T09:49:38ZEffect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trialJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:8e531540-5733-481a-9e7b-d0648070e8d6EnglishSymplectic ElementsAmerican Medical Association 2018Martin, RMDonovan, JLTurner, ELMetcalfe, CYoung, GJWalsh, EILane, JANoble, SOliver, SEEvans, SSterne, JACHolding, PBen-Shlomo, YBrindle, PWilliams, NJHill, EMNg, SYToole, JTazewell, MKHughes, LJDavies, CFThorn, JCDown, EDavey Smith, GNeal, DEHamdy, FCCAP Trial Group<p><strong>Importance</strong> Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment.</p> <p><strong>Objective</strong> To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer–specific mortality.</p> <p><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants</strong> The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016.</p> <p><strong>Intervention</strong> An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice.</p> <p><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures</strong> Primary outcome: prostate cancer–specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong> Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, −0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, −0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66).</p> <p><strong>Conclusions and Relevance</strong> Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening.</p> |
spellingShingle | Martin, RM Donovan, JL Turner, EL Metcalfe, C Young, GJ Walsh, EI Lane, JA Noble, S Oliver, SE Evans, S Sterne, JAC Holding, P Ben-Shlomo, Y Brindle, P Williams, NJ Hill, EM Ng, SY Toole, J Tazewell, MK Hughes, LJ Davies, CF Thorn, JC Down, E Davey Smith, G Neal, DE Hamdy, FC CAP Trial Group Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title | Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title_full | Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title_short | Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: The CAP randomized clinical trial |
title_sort | effect of a low intensity psa based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality the cap randomized clinical trial |
work_keys_str_mv | AT martinrm effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT donovanjl effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT turnerel effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT metcalfec effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT younggj effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT walshei effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT laneja effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT nobles effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT oliverse effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT evanss effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT sternejac effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT holdingp effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT benshlomoy effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT brindlep effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT williamsnj effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT hillem effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT ngsy effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT toolej effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT tazewellmk effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT hugheslj effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT daviescf effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT thornjc effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT downe effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT daveysmithg effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT nealde effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT hamdyfc effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial AT captrialgroup effectofalowintensitypsabasedscreeninginterventiononprostatecancermortalitythecaprandomizedclinicaltrial |