Cargando…

False-positive screening results in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum test decreases PC mortality, but screening has adverse effects, such as a high false-positive (FP) rate. We investigated the proportion of FPs in a population-based randomised screening trial...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kilpeläinen, T P, Tammela, T L J, Määttänen, L, Kujala, P, Stenman, U-H, Ala-Opas, M, Murtola, T J, Auvinen, A
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20051951
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605512
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum test decreases PC mortality, but screening has adverse effects, such as a high false-positive (FP) rate. We investigated the proportion of FPs in a population-based randomised screening trial in Finland. METHODS: Finland is the largest centre in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We have completed three screening rounds with a 4-year screening interval (mean follow-up time 9.2 years) using a PSA cutoff level of 4.0 ng ml(−1); in addition, men with PSA 3.0–3.9 and a positive auxiliary test were referred. An FP result was defined as a positive screening result without cancer in biopsy within 1 year from the screening test. RESULTS: The proportion of FP screening results varied from 3.3 to 12.1% per round. Of the screened men, 12.5% had at least one FP during three rounds. The risk of next-round PC following an FP result was 12.3–19.7 vs 1.4–3.7% following a screen-negative result (depending on the screening round), risk ratio 3.6–9.9. More than half of the men with one FP result had another one at a subsequent screen. Men with an FP result were 1.5 to 2.0 times more likely to not participate in subsequent rounds compared with men with a normal screening result (21.6–29.6 vs 14.0–16.7%). CONCLUSION: An FP result is a common adverse effect of PC screening and affects at least every eighth man screened repeatedly, even when using a relatively high cutoff level. False-positive men constitute a special group that receives unnecessary interventions but may harbour missed cancers. New strategies are needed for risk stratification in PC screening to minimise the proportion of FP men.