• 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...

. 2025 ; 87 (3) : 326-339. [pub] 20240824

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25009767

Grantová podpora
001 World Health Organization - International

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.

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...