Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 279–285 | Cite as

Screening for prostate cancer: A Cochrane systematic review

  • Dragan Ilic
  • Denise O’Connor
  • Sally Green
  • Timothy Wilt
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality.

Methods

A systematic search for randomised controlled trials was conducted through electronic scientific databases and a specialist register of the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group. Manual searching of specific journals was also conducted. Two authors independently reviewed studies that met the inclusion criteria. Studies were independently assessed for quality. Data from included studies was also extracted independently.

Results

Two randomised controlled trials were included however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis of the reported data using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomized for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80–1.29).

Conclusions

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multi-center randomised controlled trials, which will be available in the upcoming few years, will assist patients and health professionals in making an evidence-based decision regarding the effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer

Keywords

Mass screening Prostatic neoplasms Evidence based medicine Meta-analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin D, Bray F, Devesa S (2001) Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture. European. Journal of Cancer 37:S4–S66Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambert S (2001) Screening for prostate cancer. International Urology and Nephrology 33:249–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry S, Coffey D, Walsh P, Ewing L (1984) The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. Journal of Urology 132:474–479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holman C, Wisniewski Z, Semmens J, Rouse I, Bass A (1999) Mortality and prostate cancer risk in 19,598 men after surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU International 84:37–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Urological Association. In: Available at; http://www.auanet.org Accessed 5/7/2006
  6. 6.
    Urological Society of Australasia. In: Available at; http://www.urosoc.org.auAccessed 5/7/2006
  7. 7.
    Ferrini R, Woolf S (1998) American college of preventive medicine practice policy. screening for prostate cancer in American men. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15:81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coley C, Barry M, Mulley A (1997) Clinical Guideline, Part III: Screening for prostate cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine 126:480–484Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris R, Lohr K (2002) Screening for prostate cancer: An update of the evidence for the US preventive services task force. Annals of Internal Medicine 137:917–929PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ, American Cancer S (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. Ca: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 53(1):27–43Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al (2002) A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347:781–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johansson J, Andren O, Andersson S, et al (2004) Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291:2713–2719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Albertsen P, Hanley J, Fine J (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilic D, O’Connor D, Green S, Wilt T (2006) Screening for prostate cancer. In: The Cochrane Library Issue 3. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins J, Green S (2005) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. In: The Cochrane Library Issue 2. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Labrie F, Candas B, Dupont A, et al (1999) Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 38:83–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Labrie F, Candas B, Cusan L, et al (2004) Screening decreases prostate cancer mortality: 11-year follow-up of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 59:311–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandblom G, Varenhorst E, Lofman O, Rosell J, Carlsson P (2004) Clinical consequences of screening for prostate cancer 15 years follow-up of a randomised controlled trial in Sweden. Clinical consequences of screening for prostate cancer 15 years follow-up of a randomised controlled trial in Sweden 46:717–724Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schroder F, Roobol M, Damhuis R, et al (2005) Rotterdam randomized pilot studies of screening for prostate cancer—an overview after 10 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinn M, Babb P (2002) Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part II: individual countries. BJU Int 90:174–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Concato J, Wells C, Horowitz R, et al (2006) The effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer. A nested case-control study. Arch Intern Med 166:38–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman G, Hiatt R, Quesenberry C, Selby J (1991) Case-control study of screening for prostatic cancer by digital rectal examinations. Lancet 337:1526–1529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacobsen S, Bergstralh E, Katusic S, et al (1998) Screening digital rectal examination and prostate cancer mortality: a population based case-control study. Urology 52:173–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kopec J, Goel V, Bunting P, Neuman J, Sayre E, Warde P et al (2005) Screening with prostate specific antigen and metastatic prostate cancer risk: a population based case-control study. J Urol 174:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson J, Jungner G (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van der Cruijsen-Koeter I, Wildhagen M, de Koning H, Schroder F (2001) The value of current diagnostic tests in prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 88:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Napalkov P (1996) Incidence of prostate cancer will double by the year 2030: the argument for. Eur Urol 29(S2):3–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vis A, Kranse R, Roobol M, Van der Kwast T, Schroder F (2002) Serendipity in detecting disease in low prostate-specific antigen ranges. BJU Int 89:384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Welch H, Schwartz L, Woloshin S (2005) Prostate specific antigen levels in the United States: Implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natil Cancer Inst 97:1132–1137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Ilic
    • 1
  • Denise O’Connor
    • 1
  • Sally Green
    • 1
  • Timothy Wilt
    • 2
  1. 1.Monash Institute of Health Services ResearchMonash Medical Centre, Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Minneapolis VA Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes ResearchMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations