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. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. Full Text available with Trip Pro

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. (...) 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

2009 JAMA

62. 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

63. 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

64. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. Full Text available with Trip Pro

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 Controlled trial quality: predicted high

65. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. Full Text available with Trip Pro

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 Controlled trial quality: predicted high

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

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

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

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

68. 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

69. Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer Full Text available with Trip Pro

were low quality. Outcomes: mortality and number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes were prostate cancers by stage and grade at diagnosis, metastatic disease, quality of life, costs associated with screening, or harms of screening. MAIN RESULTS Reanalysis using intention to screen showed that groups did not differ for death from prostate cancer in 1 RCT and 1 quasi-RCT, respectively (table). More patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the screened group than (...) whether early detection of prostate cancer does more good than harm. In the meantime, some guidelines recommend counselling patients regarding the pros and cons of PSA testing and individualising the screening decision. Men should know that if they choose PSA screening, they substantially increase their lifetime risk of dealing with prostate cancer in exchange for an uncertain reduction in their risk of eventually dying from the disease. Footnotes For correspondence: MrD Ilic, Monash University

2008 Evidence-Based Medicine

70. 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.

71. 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.

72. Viewpoint: limiting prostate cancer screening. (Abstract)

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

73. Viewpoint: expanding prostate cancer screening. (Abstract)

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

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

to screen for prostate cancer. Findings There are no completed randomized screening trials, although two are underway. Evidence from non-randomized studies suggests possible benefit, but these results may not be reliable due to bias or alternative explanations. The main areas of uncertainty are the natural history of the disease, which appears relatively benign in many cases, and appropriate treatment for positive screened cases. Policy considerations Mass screening should not be introduced (...) 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

2004 WHO Health Evidence Network

75. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. Full Text available with Trip Pro

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

76. Screening for prostate cancer. (Abstract)

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

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

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 (...) 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

2003 JAMA

78. Screening for prostate, breast and colorectal cancer in renal transplant recipients

Cancer Institute 1995;87:417-26. Indexing Status Subject indexing assigned by NLM MeSH Colorectal Neoplasms /diagnosis; Computer Simulation; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Kidney Transplantation /adverse effects /standards; Male; Mass Screening /economics /methods; Prostatic Neoplasms /diagnosis; Time Factors AccessionNumber 22003000904 Date bibliographic record published 29/02/2004 Date abstract record published 29/02/2004 NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED (...) Screening for prostate, breast and colorectal cancer in renal transplant recipients Screening for prostate, breast and colorectal cancer in renal transplant recipients Screening for prostate, breast and colorectal cancer in renal transplant recipients Kiberd B A, Keough-Ryan T, Clase C M 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

2003 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

79. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (Abstract)

clinical detection. One study provides good evidence that radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific mortality for men with localized prostate cancer detected clinically. No study has examined the additional benefit of earlier treatment after detection by screening. Men with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years are unlikely to benefit from screening even under favorable assumptions. Each treatment is associated with several well-documented potential harms.Although potential harms of screening (...) Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. In U.S. men, prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. Screening for prostate cancer is controversial.To examine for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force the evidence of benefits and harms of screening and earlier treatment.MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, experts, and bibliographies of reviews.Researchers developed eight questions

2002 Annals of Internal Medicine

80. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. To determine whether the more intensive screening and treatment for prostate cancer in the Seattle-Puget Sound area in 1987-90 led to lower mortality from prostate cancer than in Connecticut.Natural experiment comparing two fixed cohorts from 1987 to 1997.Seattle-Puget Sound and Connecticut surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (...) areas.Population based cohorts of male Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-79 drawn from the Seattle (n=94 900) and Connecticut (n=120 621) areas.Rates of screening for prostate cancer, treatment with radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy, and prostate cancer specific mortality.The prostate specific antigen testing rate in Seattle was 5.39 (95% confidence interval 4.76 to 6.11) times that of Connecticut, and the prostate biopsy rate was 2.20 (1.81 to 2.68) times that of Connecticut during 1987-90

2002 BMJ