International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 391–396 | Cite as

The effect of prostate cancer screening on stage IV disease in America

Urology - Original Paper



Some studies have found that prostate cancer (PCa) screening provides little or no change in PCa-related mortality during the 7–10 years following diagnoses. However, most men are diagnosed with PCa at low-stage disease and die of unrelated causes during this period. Men diagnosed at stage IV are at much higher risk of dying of the disease. Therefore, stage IV rates at first diagnoses may be a surrogate marker of PCa-related mortality over a time span less than 10 years. The study objective is to examine the association between PCa screening and stage IV disease rates in new cases to explore potential benefits for PCa screening.

Materials and methods

The percent of stages I, II, III, IV and unclassified PCa diagnosed in white males in 2005 was compared to PCa screening rates on a state-by-state basis. To consider access to medical care and socioeconomic status, median family income, degree of urbanization, urologist population density and health insurance status were included in the analysis.


PCa stage IV disease correlated inversely with PCa screening rates (r = –0.42, P = 0.006) where r is the correlation coefficient and P is the probability. Stage I PCa correlated with lack of health insurance (r = 0.37, P = 0.02).


The results of this study suggest that with PCa screening may be associated with reduced rates of stage IV disease.


Cancer prevention and control Prostate cancer United States/epidemiology 


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer facts & figures 2009. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized european study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2005, Table XXIII-5, PROSTATE CANCER SURVIVAL RATES, BY RACE, DIAGNOSIS YEAR, STAGE AND AGE, National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benchmark Reports for RACE/STAGE of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed in 2005. Accessed 10 April 2008
  6. 6.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics (2006) Health data for all ages. Accessed 8 Sep 2006
  7. 7.
    US Census Bureau Data. Accessed at: [Accessed 8 September 2006]
  8. 8.
    Knox M, Clayton D, Colli J, (2009) Prostate cancer mortality projected by stage for males diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008 in the United States. Southeastern Section Meeting AUA, Mobile, Alabama in March 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B et al (2008) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 148(6):435–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al (2005) Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Screening Group study No. 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 12(19):1977–1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benchmark Reports for RACE/TREATMENT of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed in 2006. Accessed 10 April 2008
  12. 12.
    Greenland S (2001) Ecologic vs individual-level sources of confounding in ecologic estimates of contextual health effects. Int J Epidemiol 30:1343–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nelson DE, Bland S, Powell-Griner E et al (2002) State trends in health risk factors and receipt of clinical preventive services among US adults during the 1990s. AMA 287:2659–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Volk RJ, Cass AR (2002) The accuracy of primary care patients’self reports of prostate-specific antigen testing. Am J Prev Med 22:56–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.VA Medical CenterBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations