Screening and Early Detection of
Prostate Cancer Will Decrease
Morbidity and Mortality from
Prostate Cancer:
The Argument Against

Rr, Hall

doi:10.1159/000473833

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HPC1 (1q24-q25), PCaP (1q42-q43), HPCX (Xq27-q28), CAPB (1p36), HPC20 (20q13), HPC2/ECAC2 (17p11) and 10q25 [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40], but confirmatory studies at these loci have produced discordant results. Although an autosomal dominant model has been shown to provide the best model of the familial aggregation of prostate cancer in many studies [41][42][43][44][45][46], some analyses suggest that multiple alleles, each conferring modest risks such as RNASEL variants [47], may be responsible for most inherited disease [48]. The involvement of low-penetrance alleles whose effect may be modified by environmental effects, together with locus heterogeneity, provides an explanation for the difficulties with identifying a gene through linkage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is now increased concern about the early detection of prostate cancer, heightened by the ageing population. However, the conclusion that prostate-cancer screening applied to the general population is costeffective is contentious [46,47]. Most studies have found no evidence for a significant difference between familial and sporadic forms of prostate cancer in terms of either clinicopathological features, response to treatment, or outcome [48][49][50][51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of familial prostate cancer risk

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

calculating the weighted average of the log relative risk (RR) estimates from studies. RESULTSThe pooled RR (95% confidence interval) in first-degree relatives was 2.5 (2.2-2.8). There was evidence that this was highest in relatives of cases diagnosed before age 60 years and that RRs declined with age. The risk for the few men with two affected relatives was increased 3.5-fold (2.6-4.8). RRs to sons of cases appeared to be lower than in brothers; a complete explanation of this observation is uncertain. CONCLUSIONMen with a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer than those with no such history. Risks are greatest for relatives of cases diagnosed when young and those with more than one relative affected. KEYWORDSprostate cancer, familial risk, meta-analysis OBJECTIVETo identify published studies quantifying familial prostate cancer risks in relatives of prostate cancer cases and, by meta-analysis, obtain more precise estimates of familial risk according to the family history.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of familial prostate cancer risk

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There remain many uncertainties surrounding the early detection of prostate cancer. From some perspectives, the lack of randomized controlled trial data is sufficient reason to limit introduction of PSA testing, but for most, the key issue relates to problems of potential overdiagnosis 43–45 …”

Section: Early Detection Of Prostate Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer

Smith

Mettlin

Davis

et al. 2000

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

340

301

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the efficacy of screening for PCa is under continuous debate [4,5], the advent of TRUS has improved visualization of prostate lesions. Hypoechoic lesions found during TRUS, as well as high levels of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings, are the typical findings considered to be suspicious for PCa, and TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is generally recommended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasonography a Marker for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the relationship of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings with the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa).Materials and MethodsThe study was conducted retrospectively by analyzing the data for 970 patients who underwent prostate biopsies. Gleason scores and other clinical variables were compared between PCa patients with and without hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.ResultsOf the 970 patients, PCa was diagnosed in 291 (30%). Of these, high-grade PCa (Gleason score of 7 or more) was diagnosed in 190 (65%). The cancer detection rate was higher in patients with hypoechoic lesions (43.9%) than in those without hypoechoic lesions (21.4%, p<0.001). High-grade PCa was detected more often in patients with hypoechoic lesions than in those without hypoechoic lesions (p<0.001). Independent predictors for high-grade PCa by logistic regression analysis included hypoechoic lesions on TRUS and abnormal digital rectal examination findings.ConclusionsPatients with PCa who had hypoechoic lesions on TRUS had more aggressive pathological disease than did those without lesions. Therefore, hypoechoic lesions on TRUS could be a marker for clinically significant PCa.

show abstract

Screening and Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Will Decrease Morbidity and Mortality from Prostate Cancer: The Argument Against

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of familial prostate cancer risk

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of familial prostate cancer risk

American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer

Are Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasonography a Marker for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About