To the Editor: Recent articles in the Journal reflect the continuing polarisation of the debate on prostate-specific antigen-based screening and the extent to which major clinical trials reveal whether lives are saved by intervention and/or watchful waiting.1,2All clinical trials have limitations, and the ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer)3 and the United States PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) are no exception.3 ,4 The calls by two senior authors of the ERSPC trial to evaluate only high-quality studies and to avoid pooling heterogeneous data are commendable.1 However, to then argue that only their trial satisfies these criteria is scientifically questionable, since this multi-country trial is compromised precisely by this action.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Hugosson J, Carlsson SV. The dilemmas of prostate cancer screening. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 528-529. <MJA full text>
- 2. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Hirst GH, et al. Should we screen for prostate cancer? A re-examination of the evidence. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 525-527. <MJA full text>
- 3. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981-990.
- 4. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125-132.
No relevant disclosures.