Combine searches by placing the search numbers in the top search box and pressing the search button. An example search might look like (#1 or #2) and (#3 or #4)
Latest & greatest articles for prostate cancer screening
The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on prostate cancer screening or other clinical topics then use Trip today.
This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on prostate cancer screening and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.
What is Trip?
Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.
Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.
As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.
For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via email@example.com
Screening for ProstateCancer with Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Testing PCO Screening for ProstateCancer With Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion | Journal of Clinical Oncology Search in: Menu Article Tools ASCO SPECIAL ARTICLE Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.3441 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print July 16, 2012 PMID (...) : Screening for ProstateCancer With Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion x Ethan Basch , x Thomas K. Oliver , x Andrew Vickers , x Ian Thompson , x Philip Kantoff , x Howard Parnes , x D. Andrew Loblaw , x Bruce Roth , x James Williams , x Robert K. Nam Ethan Basch and Andrew Vickers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Thomas K. Oliver, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Ian Thompson, University
ProstateCancer: Screening Final Update Summary: ProstateCancer: Screening - US Preventive Services Task Force Search USPSTF Website Text size: Assembly version: 188.8.131.528 Last Build: 11/16/2018 6:27:19 PM You are here: Final Update Summary : Final Update Summary Archived: ProstateCancer: Screening Original Release Date: May 2012 This version of this topic is currently archived and inactive. It should be used for historical purposes only. Archived: Recommendation Summary Population (...) Recommendation Grade Men The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostatecancer. ( ) Archived: Related Information for Consumers Archived: Related Information for Health Professionals Archived: Supporting Documents ( ) ( ) ( ) Archived: Clinical Summary Clinical summaries are one-page documents that provide guidance to primary care clinicians for using recommendations in practice. This summary is intended for use by primary care
Screening for prostatecancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for prostatecancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for prostatecancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R, Gleitsmann K, Koenig HC, Lam C, Maltz A, Rugge B, Lin K CRD summary This review concluded that it was uncertain whether prostate-specific (...) antigen-based screening reduced prostatecancer mortality. Screening was associated with false-positive results and adverse events related to subsequent evaluation and treatment. The authors' conclusions seem appropriate, although limitations in review methods mean some relevant studies could have been missed. Authors' objectives To update the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evidence reviews on screening and treatments for prostatecancer. Searching MEDLINE and the Cochrane
Screening for prostatecancer. 22029754 2011 12 09 2011 11 24 1533-4406 365 21 2011 Nov 24 The New England journal of medicine N. Engl. J. Med. Clinical practice. Screening for prostatecancer. 2013-9 10.1056/NEJMcp1103642 Hoffman Richard M RM Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and the Medicine Service, New Mexico Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Albuquerque, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org eng Journal Article Review 2011 10 26 United States N Engl J Med 0255562 0028 (...) -4793 EC 184.108.40.206 Prostate-Specific Antigen AIM IM Biopsy Decision Making Humans Male Mass Screening adverse effects Middle Aged Patient Participation Practice Guidelines as Topic Prostate-Specific Antigen blood Prostatic Neoplasms diagnosis epidemiology mortality Risk Factors Sensitivity and Specificity United States epidemiology 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 12 14 6 0 ppublish 22029754 10.1056/NEJMcp1103642
Stratifying risk - the u.s. Preventive services task force and prostate-cancerscreening. 22029756 2011 12 09 2011 11 24 1533-4406 365 21 2011 Nov 24 The New England journal of medicine N. Engl. J. Med. Stratifying risk--the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and prostate-cancerscreening. 1953-5 10.1056/NEJMp1112140 Schröder Fritz H FH Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. eng Journal Article 2011 10 26 United States N Engl J Med 0255562 0028-4793 EC 220.127.116.11 (...) Prostate-Specific Antigen AIM IM Advisory Committees Humans Male Mass Screening standards Practice Guidelines as Topic Preventive Health Services standards Prostate-Specific Antigen blood Prostatic Neoplasms blood diagnosis prevention & control Risk Factors United States 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 12 14 6 0 ppublish 22029756 10.1056/NEJMp1112140
Prostate-cancerscreening - what the u.s. Preventive services task force left out. 22029759 2011 12 09 2011 11 24 1533-4406 365 21 2011 Nov 24 The New England journal of medicine N. Engl. J. Med. Prostate-cancerscreening--what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force left out. 1949-51 10.1056/NEJMp1112191 Brett Allan S AS Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, USA. Ablin Richard J RJ eng Journal Article 2011 10 26 United States N Engl J Med 0255562 (...) 0028-4793 EC 18.104.22.168 Prostate-Specific Antigen AIM IM Advisory Committees Direct Service Costs Humans Male Mass Screening economics standards Practice Guidelines as Topic Preventive Health Services standards Prostate-Specific Antigen blood Prostatic Neoplasms blood diagnosis prevention & control United States 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 10 28 6 0 2011 12 14 6 0 ppublish 22029759 10.1056/NEJMp1112191
Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostatecancer Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostatecancer Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostatecancer Shteynshlyuger A, Andriole GL Record Status (...) This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn. CRD summary This study examined the cost-effectiveness of screening for prostatecancer using prostate-specific antigen, compared with no screening, using the preliminary results of the European Randomized Study of Screening
PSA Test to Screen for ProstateCancer PSA Test to Screen for ProstateCancer – TheNNTTheNNT Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Test to Screen for ProstateCancer 5 for unneeded biopsy In Summary, for those who got the PSA test: Benefits in NNT 100% saw no benefit 0% were helped by preventing death from any cause 0% were helped by preventing death from prostatecancer None were helped (preventing death from any cause, preventing death from prostatecancer) Harms in NNT 20% were harmed (...) with prostate CA in their lifetime and a 3% chance of dying from prostatecancer. Autopsy studies have shown that up to 2/3 of elderly men die with asymptomatic prostatecancer. It appears that if they live long enough most men will develop prostatecancer, though it will not affect their longevity. Given the high incidence of prostatecancer, there have been aggressive efforts to screen patients with the hopes of diagnosing local (non-metastatic) cancer that can be treated before it progresses. Elevated
Population screening act: prostatecancerscreening using MRI Population screening act: prostatecancerscreening using MRI Population screening act: prostatecancerscreening using MRI Health Council of the Netherlands Record Status This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. Citation Health Council of the Netherlands. Population screening act: prostatecancerscreening using MRI (...) . The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands Gezondheidsraad (GR). 2011/37. 2011 Final publication URL Indexing Status Subject indexing assigned by CRD MeSH Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms Language Published English Country of organisation Netherlands English summary An English language summary is available. Address for correspondence Postbus 16052, 2500 BB Den Haag, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 70 340 7520;Fax: +31 70 340 7523 Email: email@example.com AccessionNumber
Randomised prostatecancerscreening trial: 20 year follow-up. To assess whether screening for prostatecancer reduces prostatecancer specific mortality.Population based randomised controlled trial.Department of Urology, Norrköping, and the South-East Region ProstateCancer Register.All men aged 50-69 in the city of Norrköping, Sweden, identified in 1987 in the National Population Register (n = 9026).From the study population, 1494 men were randomly allocated to be screened by including every (...) sixth man from a list of dates of birth. These men were invited to be screened every third year from 1987 to 1996. On the first two occasions screening was done by digital rectal examination only. From 1993, this was combined with prostate specific antigen testing, with 4 µg/L as cut off. On the fourth occasion (1996), only men aged 69 or under at the time of the investigation were invited.Data on tumour stage, grade, and treatment from the South East Region ProstateCancer Register. Prostatecancer
Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) CancerScreening Randomized Controlled Trial. Screening for ovarian cancer with cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and transvaginal ultrasound has an unknown effect on mortality.To evaluate the effect of screening for ovarian cancer on mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) CancerScreening Trial.Randomized controlled trial of 78,216 women aged 55 to 74 years assigned to undergo (...) ultrasound but received their usual medical care. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years (median [range], 12.4 years [10.9-13.0 years]) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010.Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures.Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years
Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. The effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer with modern chest radiographs is unknown.To evaluate the effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer using radiographs in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) CancerScreening Trial.Randomized controlled trial that involved 154,901 participants aged 55 through 74 years, 77,445 of whom were assigned (...) % at years 1 through 3; the rate of screening use in the usual care group was 11%. Cumulative lung cancer incidence rates through 13 years of follow-up were 20.1 per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group and 19.2 per 10,000 person-years in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR]; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.98-1.12). A total of 1213 lung cancer deaths were observed in the intervention group compared with 1230 in usual care group through 13 years (mortality RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22). Stage and histology were
Patient-centered discussions about prostatecancerscreening: a real-world approach. National guidelines recommend that primary care providers discuss the risks and benefits of prostatecancerscreening with their patients but give little guidance on how to fit such a complex discussion into a busy clinic encounter. The authors propose a process-oriented approach (Ask-Tell-Ask) that promotes tailored conversations and value-based recommendations. The Ask-Tell-Ask approach includes diagnosing (...) a patient's informational needs, providing targeted education based on those needs, and making a shared decision about testing. This time-efficient model emphasizes the provider's role as an interactive guide rather than a one-way supplier of information. Although there is no way to make these discussions simple, this streamlined strategy can help patients and providers efficiently negotiate the complex and important decision of screening for prostatecancer.
Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancerscreening trial Prostatecancer is one of the leading causes of death from malignant disease among men in the developed world. One strategy to decrease the risk of death from this disease is screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA); however, the extent of benefit and harm with such screening is under continuous debate.In December, 1994, 20,000 men born between 1930 and 1944, randomly sampled from (...) the population register, were randomised by computer in a 1:1 ratio to either a screening group invited for PSA testing every 2 years (n=10,000) or to a control group not invited (n=10,000). Men in the screening group were invited up to the upper age limit (median 69, range 67-71 years) and only men with raised PSA concentrations were offered additional tests such as digital rectal examination and prostate biopsies. The primary endpoint was prostate-cancer specific mortality, analysed according
Screening for prostatecancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer.Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without (...) was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostatecancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostatecancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostatecancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants' quality