Costs of screening for prostate cancer : Evidence from the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 20-year follow-up using register data

Objectives: Few empirical analyses of the impact of organised prostate cancer (PCa) screening on healthcare costs exist, despite cost-related information often being considered as a prerequisite to informed screening decisions. Therefore, we estimate the differences in register-based costs of publicly funded healthcare in the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) after 20 years. Methods: We obtained individual-level register data on prescription medications, as well as inpatient and outpatient care, to estimate healthcare costs for 80,149 men during the first 20 years of the FinRSPC. We compared healthcare costs for the men in each trial arm and performed statistical analysis. Results: For all men diagnosed with PCa during the 20-year observation period, mean PCa-related costs appeared to be around 10% lower in the screening arm (SA). Mean all-cause healthcare costs for these men were also lower in the SA, but differences were smaller than for PCa-related costs alone, and no longer statistically significant. For men dying from PCa, although the difference was not statistically significant, mean all-cause healthcare costs were around 10% higher. When analysis included all observations, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the CA; however, after excluding extreme values, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the SA. Conclusions: No major cost impacts due to screening were apparent, but the FinRSPC's 20-year follow-up period is too short to provide definitive evidence at this stage. Longer term follow-up will be required to be better informed about the costs of, or savings from, introducing mass PCa screening. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Estimating bias in causes of death ascertainment in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Background: Precise cause of death (CoD) ascertainment is crucial in any cancer screening trial to avoid bias from misclassification due to excessive recording of diagnosed cancer as a CoD in death certificates instead of non-cancer disease that actually caused death. We estimated whether there was bias in CoD determination between screening (SA) and control arms (CA) in a population-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening trial. Methods: Our trial is the largest component of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with more than 80,000 men. Randomly selected deaths in men with PCa (N = 442/2568 cases, 17.2%) were reviewed by an independent CoD committee. Median follow-up was 16.8 years in both arms. Results: Overdiagnosis of PCa was present in the SA as the risk ratio for PCa incidence was 1.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.24). The hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality was 0.94 (95% CI 0.82-1.08) in favor of the SA. Agreement with official CoD registry was 94.6% (k = 0.88) in the SA and 95.4% (k = 0.91) in the CA. Altogether 14 PCa deaths were estimated as false-positive in both arms and exclusion of these resulted in HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.06). Conclusions: A small differential misclassification bias in ascertainment of CoD was present, most likely due to attribution bias (overdiagnosis in the SA). Maximum precision in CoD ascertainment can only be achieved with independent review of all deaths in the diseased population. However, this is cumbersome and expensive and may provide little benefit compared to random sampling. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PSA-based mass screening : Evidence from a randomised controlled trial combined with register data

In contrast to earlier studies which have used modelling to perform cost-effectiveness analysis, this study links data from a randomised controlled trial with register data from nationwide registries to reveal new evidence on costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of organised mass prostate-cancer screening based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with individual-level data on health-care costs from comprehensive registers and register data on real-world effectiveness from the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC), following 80,149 men from 1996 through 2015. The study examines cost-effectiveness in terms of overall mortality and, in addition, in terms of diagnosed men’s mortality from prostate cancer and mortality with but not from prostate cancer. Neither arm of the FinRSPC was clearly more cost-effective in analysis in terms of overall mortality. Organised screening in the FinRSPC could be considered cost-effective in terms of deaths from prostate cancer: averting just over one death per 1000 men screened. However, even with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of below 20,000€ per death avoided, this result should not be considered in isolation. This is because mass screening in this trial also resulted in increases in death with, but not from, prostate cancer: with over five additional deaths per 1000 men screened. Analysis of real-world data from the FinRSPC reveals new evidence of the comparative effectiveness of PSA-based screening after 20 years of follow-up, suggesting the possibility of higher mortality, as well as higher healthcare costs, for screening-arm men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer but who do not die from it. These findings should be corroborated or contradicted by similar analyses using data from other trials, in order to reveal if more diagnosed men have also died in the screening arms of other trials of mass screening for prostate cancer.Peer reviewe

Asbestos-related pleural and lung fibrosis in patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a rare fibroinflammatory disease that leads to hydronephrosis and renal failure. In a case-control study, we have recently shown that asbestos exposure was the most important risk factor for RPF in the Finnish population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation of asbestos exposure to radiologically confirmed lung and pleural fibrosis among patients with RPF.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed on 16 unexposed and 22 asbestos-exposed RPF patients and 18 asbestos-exposed controls. Parietal pleural plaques (PPP), diffuse pleural thickening (DPT) and parenchymal fibrosis were scored separately.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the asbestos-exposed RPF patients and half of the asbestos-exposed controls had bilateral PPP, but only a few had lung fibrosis. Minor bilateral plaques were detected in two of the unexposed RPF patients, and none had lung fibrosis. DPT was most frequent and thickest in the asbestos-exposed RPF-patients. In three asbestos-exposed patients with RPF we observed exceptionally large pleural masses that were located anteriorly in the pleural space and continued into the anterior mediastinum.</p> <p>Asbestos exposure was associated with DPT in comparisons between RPF patients and controls (case-control analysis) as well as among RPF patients (case-case analysis).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most distinctive feature of the asbestos-exposed RPF patients was a thick DPT. An asbestos-related pleural finding was common in the asbestos-exposed RPF patients, but only a few of these patients had parenchymal lung fibrosis. RPF without asbestos exposure was not associated with pleural or lung fibrosis. The findings suggest a shared etiology for RPF and pleural fibrosis and furthermore possibly a similar pathogenetic mechanisms.</p

European code against cancer 4th edition: 12 ways to reduce your cancer risk

This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer