Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Counterpoint

Randomized Trials Provide the Strongest Evidence for Clinical Guidelines The US Preventive Services Task Force and Prostate Cancer Screening

Bibliographic Data

ID9103002
AuthorsJoy Melnikow (0000-0002-9963-6089, Center For Policy Research, corresponding author), Michael Lefevre (0000-0002-2046-3593, University of Missouri), Timothy J Wilt (0000-0002-6019-7779, University of Minnesota), Virginia A Moyer (0000-0002-0502-1105, Baylor College of Medicine)
Year2013
Volume51
Issue4
Pages301-303
Publication date2013-04-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/mlr.0b013e31828a67d3
PMID23481031
OpenAlexW107009692
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited11

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer based primarily on 2 large long-term randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and a systematic review of harms resulting from screening. OBJECTIVE: To support use of large, long-term randomized trials as the evidence base for clinical guidelines on screening and to draw attention to limitations of modeling studies used for this purpose. METHODS: We respond to critiques of use of RCTs as the primary evidence base, considering the results of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trials, documented harms resulting from PSA screening, and methodological concerns with modeling studies. RESULTS: The PLCO and ERSPC provided 11-13 years of follow-up on over 250,000 subjects. The PLCO, despite limitations, is most representative of US populations, screening and treatment practices, and showed no mortality benefit resulting from annual PSA testing after 13 years of follow-up. The confidence interval was narrow and precluded more than a 13% relative mortality reduction. Competing causes of mortality in older men make it progressively less likely that longer follow-up will demonstrate a large absolute reduction in disease-specific mortality. With continued screening, the increasing prevalence of asymptomatic cancers in older men will increase the rate of overdiagnosis. Potential harms from screening and treatment are significant. CONCLUSIONS: Projections from models are subject to mistaken assumptions and investigator biases, and should not be accorded the same weight as evidence from RCTs. Current empiric evidence is sufficient to support the US Preventive Services Task Force guideline that clinicians should recommend against PSA screening for prostate cancer

Cancer · Confidence interval · Disease · Intensive care medicine · MEDLINE · Overdiagnosis · Prostate cancer · Randomized controlled trial · Relative risk · Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Oncology · Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research

  • Is Evidence, Like Beauty, Only in the Eye of the Beholder

    Ronnie D Horner•Medical Care•2013

  • More than the Affordable Care Act

    Open Access•Lisa A Frazier, Lisa Frazier•Policy Studies Journal•2016

  • Limitations of Basing Screening Policies on Screening Trials

    Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati et al.•Medical Care•2013

Citations per year0.15
Citation span2013 - 2016 (4)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae