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 jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for prostate cancer screening

61. Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Djulbegovic M, Beyth RJ, Neuberger MM, Stoffs TL, Vieweg J, Djulbegovic B, Dahm P CRD summary This review found that screening for prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination (...) increased prostate cancer diagnosis but did not reduce mortality. The authors concluded that current evidence did not support the routine use of screening. The review was well-conducted and the conclusions appear reliable. Authors' objectives To assess the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer. Searching The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2005 to July 2010 to identify trials published since a Cochrane review

2010 DARE.

62. Prostate Cancer Screening: Where Do We Stand Now?

Prostate Cancer Screening: Where Do We Stand Now? Prostate Cancer Screening: Where Do We Stand Now? – Clinical Correlations Search Prostate Cancer Screening: Where Do We Stand Now? December 9, 2009 7 min read Annery Garcia Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in western men and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men in the U.S. 1 In 2007 approximately 218,890 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and it is expected that one out of six men will receive (...) , and African American men are at increased risk of prostate cancer. A diet high in fat has also been found to increase the risk of prostate cancer. 3 Currently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force finds the evidence insufficient to recommend for or against prostate cancer screening in men younger than 75 years old. 4 It recommends against prostate cancer screening in men 75 years or older. 4 Screening for prostate cancer includes a digital rectal exam (DRE) and measuring blood levels of prostate

2009 Clinical Correlations

63. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. (PubMed)

Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. After 20 years of screening for breast and prostate cancer, several observations can be made. First, the incidence of these cancers increased after the introduction of screening but has never returned to prescreening levels. Second, the increase in the relative fraction of early stage cancers has increased. Third, the incidence of regional cancers has not decreased at a commensurate rate. One possible explanation is that screening may (...) be increasing the burden of low-risk cancers without significantly reducing the burden of more aggressively growing cancers and therefore not resulting in the anticipated reduction in cancer mortality. To reduce morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, new approaches for screening, early detection, and prevention for both diseases should be considered.

2009 JAMA

64. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. (PubMed)

Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer was initiated in the early 1990s to evaluate the effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing on death rates from prostate cancer.We identified 182,000 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years through registries in seven European countries for inclusion in our study. The men were randomly assigned to a group that was offered PSA screening (...) at an average of once every 4 years or to a control group that did not receive such screening. The predefined core age group for this study included 162,243 men between the ages of 55 and 69 years. The primary outcome was the rate of death from prostate cancer. Mortality follow-up was identical for the two study groups and ended on December 31, 2006.In the screening group, 82% of men accepted at least one offer of screening. During a median follow-up of 9 years, the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer

2009 NEJM

65. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. (Full text)

Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. The effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality.From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual (...) % for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50

2009 NEJM PubMed

66. Periodic screening with prostate-specific antigen testing reduced mortality from prostate cancer

Periodic screening with prostate-specific antigen testing reduced mortality from prostate cancer Periodic screening with prostate-specific antigen testing reduced mortality from prostate cancer | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using your username and password For personal accounts (...) OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Periodic screening with prostate-specific antigen testing reduced mortality from prostate cancer Article Text Therapeutics Periodic screening with prostate-specific antigen testing reduced mortality

2009 Evidence-Based Medicine (Requires free registration)

67. Annual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce mortality from prostate cancer

Annual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce mortality from prostate cancer Annual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce mortality from prostate cancerAnnual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce mortality from prostate cancer | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log (...) in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Annual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce mortality from prostate cancerAnnual screening for prostate cancer did not reduce

2009 Evidence-Based Medicine (Requires free registration)

68. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. (PubMed)

Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement about screening for prostate cancer.The USPSTF evaluated randomized, controlled trials of the benefits of prostate cancer screening; cohort and cross-sectional studies of the psychological harms of false-positive prostate-specific antigen test results; and evidence on the natural history of prostate-specific antigen (...) -detected prostate cancer to address previously identified gaps in the evidence from the 2002 USPSTF recommendation.Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer in men younger than age 75 years (I statement). Do not screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older (Grade D recommendation).

2008 Annals of Internal Medicine

69. Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (PubMed)

Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in men in the United States, and prostate cancer screening has increased in recent years. In 2002, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.To examine new evidence (...) on benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer with PSA.English-language articles identified in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (search dates, January 2002 to July 2007), reference lists of retrieved articles, and expert suggestions.Randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of PSA screening and cross-sectional and cohort studies of screening harms and of the natural history of screening-detected cancer were selected to answer the following questions: Does screening

2008 Annals of Internal Medicine

70. Screening for prostate cancer in U.S. men: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.

Screening for prostate cancer in U.S. men: ACPM position statement on preventive practice. Guidelines and Measures | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality HHS.gov Search ahrq.gov Search ahrq.gov Menu Topics A - Z Healthcare Delivery Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care Searchable database of AHRQ Grants, Working Papers & HHS Recovery Act Projects AHRQ Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund You are here Guidelines and Measures Funding

2008 American College of Preventive Medicine

71. Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer (Full text)

Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using your username (...) and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer Article Text Therapeutics Review: evidence from 2 low

2008 Evidence-Based Medicine (Requires free registration) PubMed

72. Benefits and harms of prostate-specific cancer screening: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Benefits and harms of prostate-specific cancer screening: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Benefits and harms of prostate-specific cancer screening: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Benefits and harms of prostate-specific cancer screening: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S Record Status This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from (...) a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. Citation Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S. Benefits and harms of prostate-specific cancer screening: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Evidence Synthesis No 63. 2008 Authors' objectives To examine new evidence of benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer with PSA testing

2008 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database.

73. Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective

Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective Kobayashi T, Goto R, Ito K, Mitsumori K 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 evaluated the cost-effectiveness of personalised re-screening strategies for prostate cancer. Strategies were based on individual baseline levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA

2007 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

74. Screening for prostate cancer. (Full text)

Screening for prostate cancer. Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use (...) of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both

2006 Cochrane PubMed

75. Viewpoint: limiting prostate cancer screening. (PubMed)

Viewpoint: limiting prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening is controversial, and major professional associations offer differing screening guidelines. The author addresses 3 key issues about prostate cancer screening: 1) the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria to recommend a prostate biopsy, 2) the appropriate age to start screening, and 3) the appropriate age to stop screening. The author argues, on the basis of evidence published since 2000, that data supporting (...) the efficacy of PSA screening remain unconvincing. The author recommends that screening should not be expanded to include average-risk men younger than age 50 years or older than age 75 years and that a PSA threshold below 4.0 ng/mL should not be used to trigger biopsy referral.

2006 Annals of Internal Medicine

76. Viewpoint: expanding prostate cancer screening. (PubMed)

Viewpoint: expanding prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening is controversial, and major professional associations offer differing screening guidelines. The authors address 3 key issues about prostate cancer screening: 1) the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria to recommend a prostate biopsy, 2) the appropriate age to start screening, and 3) the appropriate age to stop screening. The authors argue, on the basis of evidence published since 2000, that data supporting (...) the efficacy of PSA screening are convincing. They recommend screening for risk assessment for average-risk men beginning at age 40 years, screening selected healthy men older than age 70 years, and lowering the PSA threshold for considering biopsy to 2.5 ng/mL for all men.

2006 Annals of Internal Medicine

77. Should mass screening for prostate cancer be introduced at the national level?

Should mass screening for prostate cancer be introduced at the national level? WHO/Europe | Should mass screening for prostate cancer be introduced at the national level? S Français Deutsch Pусский M search Databases Interactive atlases Evidence resources European health report Our flagship report maps health trends, charts progress towards achieving health goals and provides an advance base for health policy Resources Social media Events Organization Governance Partners Networks Jobs (...) and internships Should mass screening for prostate cancer be introduced at the national level? Should mass screening for prostate cancer be introduced at the national level? Download Summary The issue Prostate cancer is a major cause of death among men, with over 56,000 deaths in the European Union in 1998. There are no obvious preventive strategies, therefore screening has been considered to reduce the number of deaths. Opportunistic screening is widely carried out but there are no known national programmes

2004 WHO Health Evidence Network

78. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. (PubMed)

Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. The sensitivity and specificity of a screening test are biased when disease status is not verified in all subjects and when the likelihood of confirmation depends on the test result itself. We assessed the screening characteristics of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement after correction for verification bias.Between 1995 and 2001, 6691 men underwent PSA-based screening (...) for prostate cancer. Of these men, 705 (11 percent) subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate. Under the assumption that the chance of undergoing a biopsy depends only on the PSA-test result and other observed clinical variables, we used a mathematical model to estimate adjusted receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves.Adjusting for verification bias significantly increased the area under the ROC curve (i.e., the overall diagnostic performance) of the PSA test, as compared with an unadjusted

2003 NEJM

79. Screening for prostate cancer. (PubMed)

Screening for prostate cancer. Epidemiologically, screening is justified by the importance of the disease and the lack of prospects for primary prevention, but evidence from natural history is unhelpful since men are more likely to die with, rather than from, prostate cancer. The available screening tests do not always detect men whose lesions could result in future morbidity or mortality. Evidence is limited for the benefits of treatment for localised cancers detected through screening (...) , whereas the evidence for harm is clear. Observational evidence for the effect of population screening programmes is mixed, with no clear association between intensity of screening and reduced prostate cancer mortality. Screening for prostate cancer cannot be justified in low-risk populations, but the balance of benefit and harm will be more favourable after risk stratification. Prostate cancer screening can be justified only in research programmes designed to assess its effectiveness and help identify

2003 Lancet

80. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? (PubMed)

Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? The debate about the efficacy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer has received substantial attention in the medical literature and the media, but the extent to which men are actually screened is unknown. If practice were evidence-based, PSA screening would be less common among men than colorectal cancer screening, a preventive service of broad acceptance (...) and proven efficacy.To compare the prevalences of PSA and colorectal cancer screening among US men.The 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual population-based telephone survey of US adults conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was used to gather data on a representative sample of men aged 40 years or older from all 50 states and the District of Columbia (n = 49 315).Proportions of men ever screened and up to date on screening for prostate cancer (with PSA

2003 JAMA