-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK
RCA. Leenen, LDF. Venderbos, J. Helleman, J. Gómez Rivas, P. Vynckier, L. Annemans, R. Chloupková, O. Májek, E. Briers, V. Vasilyeva, S. Remmers, MJ. van Harten, FB. Denijs, II. de Vos, A. Chandran, P. Basu, RCN. van den Bergh, S. Collen, H. Van...
Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy
Grantová podpora
001
World Health Organization - International
- MeSH
- časná detekce nádoru * MeSH
- Evropská unie * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory prostaty * diagnóza MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Spojené království MeSH
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK. METHODS: On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care Ghent University Ghent Belgium
Department of Urology Clínico San Carlos University Hospital Madrid Spain
Department of Urology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium
European Association of Urology Policy Office Arnhem The Netherlands
Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czechia
International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization Lyon France
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25009767
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250429134616.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250415s2025 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.07.019 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39183092
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Leenen, Renée C A $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.leenen@erasmusmc.nl
- 245 10
- $a Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK / $c RCA. Leenen, LDF. Venderbos, J. Helleman, J. Gómez Rivas, P. Vynckier, L. Annemans, R. Chloupková, O. Májek, E. Briers, V. Vasilyeva, S. Remmers, MJ. van Harten, FB. Denijs, II. de Vos, A. Chandran, P. Basu, RCN. van den Bergh, S. Collen, H. Van Poppel, MJ. Roobol, K. Beyer, PRAISE-U Consortium
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK. METHODS: On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.
- 650 12
- $a nádory prostaty $x diagnóza $7 D011471
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 12
- $a časná detekce nádoru $7 D055088
- 650 12
- $a Evropská unie $7 D005062
- 651 _2
- $a Spojené království $x epidemiologie $7 D006113
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a přehledy $7 D016454
- 700 1_
- $a Venderbos, Lionne D F $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Helleman, Jozien $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Gómez Rivas, Juan $u Department of Urology, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
- 700 1_
- $a Vynckier, Pieter $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- 700 1_
- $a Annemans, Lieven $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- 700 1_
- $a Chloupková, Renata $u National Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Májek, Ondřej $u National Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Briers, Erik $u Europa Uomo, Antwerp, Belgium
- 700 1_
- $a Vasilyeva, Vera $u European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Remmers, Sebastiaan $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a van Harten, Meike J $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Denijs, Frederique B $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a de Vos, Ivo I $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Chandran, Arunah $u International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France
- 700 1_
- $a Basu, Partha $u International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France
- 700 1_
- $a van den Bergh, Roderick C N $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Collen, Sarah $u European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Van Poppel, Hein $u European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- 700 1_
- $a Roobol, Monique J $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Beyer, Katharina $u Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 710 2_
- $a PRAISE-U Consortium
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 87, č. 3 (2025), s. 326-339
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39183092 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250415 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250429134612 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2311255 $s 1246848
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 87 $c 3 $d 326-339 $e 20240824 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
- GRA __
- $a 001 $p World Health Organization $2 International
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250415