Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27889661›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology2017

What explains the differences between centres in the European screening trial? A simulation study.

Jaakko Nevalainen, Ulf-Håkan Stenman, Teuvo L Tammela, Monique Roobol, Sigrid Carlsson, Kirsi Talala, Fritz H Schröder, Anssi Auvinen

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jaakko NevalainenUniversity of Tampere, School of Health Sciences, Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: jaakko.nevalainen@uta.fi.
Ulf-Håkan StenmanDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland.
Teuvo L TammelaTampere University Hospital, Department of Urology and University of Tampere, Medical School, Tampere, Finland.
Monique RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sigrid CarlssonSahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, Department of Surgery and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, New York, NY, USA.
Kirsi TalalaFinnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland.
Fritz H SchröderDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anssi AuvinenUniversity of Tampere, School of Health Sciences, Tampere, Finland.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
SPORE In Prostate CancerP50CA092629 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JAMES A EASTHAM · 2001 to 2026
$63.0M
Prospective validation of a multi-marker prostate cancer prediction modelR01CA160816 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI BOORJIAN, STEPHEN, COOPERBERG, MATTHEW R · 2012 to 2015
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092629NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160816
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) is a multicentre, randomised screening trial on men aged 55-69 years at baseline without known prostate cancer (PrCa) at randomisation to an intervention arm invited to screening or to a control arm. The ERSPC has shown a significant 21% reduction in PrCa mortality at 13 years of follow-up. The effect of screening appears to vary across centres, for which several explanations are possible. We set to assess if the apparent differences in PrCa mortality reduction between the centres can be explained by differences in screening protocols.

methodsWe examined the centre differences by developing a simulation model and estimated how alternative screening protocols would have affected PrCa mortality.

resultsOur results showed outcomes similar to those observed, when the results by centres were reproduced by simulating the screening regimens with PSA threshold of 3 versus 4ng/ml, or screening interval of two versus four years. The findings suggest that the differences are only marginally attributable to the different screening protocols.

conclusionThe small screening impact in Finland was not explained by the differences in the screening protocols. A possible reason for it was the contamination of and the unexpectedly low PrCa mortality in the Finnish control arm.

Indexed as

AgedEarly Detection of CancerEuropeHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProstate-Specific AntigenLongitudinal PSA modelProstate cancerProstate-specific antigenScreeningSimulation model

Identifiers

PMID27889661
PMCPMC5415347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.