Estimate of Opportunistic Prostate Specific Antigen Testing in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Purpose: Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial, although ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) showed a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality. The Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, which is the largest component of ERSPC, demonstrated a statistically nonsignificant 16% mortality benefit in a separate analysis. The purpose of this study was to estimate the degree of contamination in the control arm of the Finnish trial. Materials and Methods: Altogether 48,295 and 31,872 men were randomized to the control and screening arms, respectively. The screening period was 1996 to 2007. The extent of prostate specific antigen testing was analyzed retrospectively using laboratory databases. The incidence of T1c prostate cancer (impalpable prostate cancer detected by elevated prostate specific antigen) was determined from the national Finnish Cancer Registry. Results: Approximately 1.4% of men had undergone prostate specific antigen testing 1 to 3 years before randomization. By the first 4, 8 and 12 years of follow-up 18.1%, 47.7% and 62.7% of men in the control arm had undergone prostate specific antigen testing at least once and in the screening arm the proportions were 69.8%, 81.1% and 85.2%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of T1c prostate cancer was 6.1% in the screening arm and 4.5% in the control arm (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30). Conclusions: A large proportion of men in the control arm had undergone a prostate specific antigen test during the 15-year followup. Contamination is likely to dilute differences in prostate cancer mortality between the arms in the Finnish screening trial.Peer reviewe

Intraoperative complications in kidney tumor surgery : critical grading for the European Association of Urology intraoperative adverse incident classification

Introduction The European Association of Urology committee in 2020 suggested a new classification, intraoperative adverse incident classification (EAUiaiC), to grade intraoperative adverse events (IAE) in urology. Aims We applied and validated EAUiaiC, for kidney tumor surgery. Patients and methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted based on chart review. The study group comprised 749 radical nephrectomies (RN) and 531 partial nephrectomies (PN) performed in 12 hospitals in Finland during 2016-2017. All IAEs were centrally graded for EAUiaiC. The classification was adapted to kidney tumor surgery by the inclusion of global bleeding as a transfusion of >= 3 units of blood (Grade 2) or as >= 5 units (Grade 3), and also by the exclusion of preemptive conversions. Results A total of 110 IAEs were recorded in 13.8% of patients undergoing RN, and 40 IAEs in 6.4% of patients with PN. Overall, bleeding injuries in major vessels, unspecified origin and parenchymal organs accounted for 29.3, 24.0, and 16.0% of all IEAs, respectively. Bowel (n = 10) and ureter (n = 3) injuries were rare. There was no intraoperative mortality. IAEs were associated with increased tumor size, tumor extent, age, comorbidity scores, surgical approach and indication, postoperative Clavien-Dindo (CD) complications and longer stay in hospital. 48% of conversions were reactive with more CD-complications after reactive than preemptive conversion (43 vs. 25%). Conclusions The associations between IAEs and preoperative variables and postoperative outcome indicate good construct validity for EAUiaiC. Bleeding is the most important IAE in kidney tumor surgery and the inclusion of transfusions could provide increased objectivity.Peer reviewe