It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The extent to which PSA screening is related to prostate cancer mortality reduction in the United States (US) is controversial. US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data from 1980 to 2016 were examined to assess the relationship between prostate cancer mortality and cumulative excess incidence (CEI) in the PSA screening era and to clarify the impact of race on this relationship. CEI was considered as a surrogate for the intensity of prostate cancer screening with PSA testing and subsequent biopsy as appropriate. Data from 163,982,733 person-years diagnosed with 544,058 prostate cancers (9 registries, 9% of US population) were examined. Strong inverse linear relationships were noted between CEI and prostate cancer mortality, and 317,356 prostate cancer deaths were avoided. Eight regions of the US demonstrated prostate cancer mortality reduction of 46.0–63.7%. On a per population basis, the lives of more black men than white men were saved in three of four registries with sufficient black populations for comparison. Factor(s) independent of CEI (potential effects of treatment advances) explained 14.6% of the mortality benefit (p-value = 0.3357) while there was a significant main effect of CEI (effect = −0.0064; CI: [−0.0088, −0.0040]; p-value < 0.0001). Therefore, there is a strong relationship between CEI and prostate cancer mortality reduction that was not related to factors independent of screening utilization. Minority populations have experienced large mortality reductions in the context of PSA mass utilization.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Michigan, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7347); Assarian Cancer Center, Ascension Providence Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Novi, USA (GRID:grid.415290.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0465 4685)
2 University of Michigan, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7347); Self Regional Healthcare, Department of Advanced Radiation Oncology, Greenwood, USA (GRID:grid.492931.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0406 8723)
3 University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7347)
4 Dignity Health Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Phoenix, USA (GRID:grid.490801.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0461 558X)
5 British Columbia Cancer Agency and University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada (GRID:grid.248762.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 0702 3000)