Evidence Hub

Screening history and risk of death from prostate cancer: a nested case–control study within the screening arm of the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC)

K. Talala, Stephen D. Walter, K. Taari, T. Tammela, P. Kujala, Anssi Auvinen

Cancer Causes and Control, 2023

1,544 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

We assessed the risk of death from prostate cancer (PCa) in relation to men’s screening histories, i.e., screening attendance among men who were offered screening. Men in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) screening arm were invited to up to three screening rounds with the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test at 4-year intervals during 1996–2007. Case subjects (n = 330) were men who died from PCa. Each case was matched to five controls (n = 1544) among the men who were free of PCa. Screening history was defined as (1) never/ever attended screening prior to the case diagnosis; (2) attended at the first screening round; and (3) recency of screening, calculated as the time from last screening attendance to the date of case diagnosis. The association between screening history and the risk of death from PCa was estimated by odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression. Having ever attended screening versus never attended was associated with a reduced risk of PCa death (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.81) and a similar association was found for those attended (versus not attended) the first screening round (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.87). The effect by time since last screen for the risk of PCa death was significantly lower 2–7 years since last screen. Among men invited to screening, subjects who attended any PSA screening during the previous 19 years had a 40% reduction in PCa mortality compared to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,544 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free