Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Characteristics of men responding to an invitation to undergo testing for prostate cancer as part of a randomised trial

Authors: Eleanor I. Walsh, Emma L. Turner, J. Athene Lane, Jenny L. Donovan, David E. Neal, Freddie C. Hamdy, Richard M. Martin, and the CAP & ProtecT Trial Groups, Investigators, Research staff, Management Committee, CAP & ProtecT Trial Steering Committee, Data Monitoring Committee, Administrative staff

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sociodemographic characteristics are associated with participating in cancer screening and trials. We compared the characteristics of those responding with those not responding to a single invitation for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer as part of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Methods

Age, rurality and deprivation among 197,763 men from 271 cluster-randomised primary care centres in the UK were compared between those responding (n = 90,300) and those not responding (n = 100,953) to a prostate cancer testing invitation.

Results

There was little difference in age between responders and nonresponders. Responders were slightly more likely to come from urban rather than rural areas and were slightly less deprived than those who did not respond.

Conclusion

These data indicate similarities in age and only minor differences in deprivation and urban location between responders and nonresponders. These differences were smaller, but in the same direction as those observed in other screening trials.

Trial registration

ISRCTN92187251. Registered on 29 November 2004.
Literature
1.
Andriole GL, 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(2):125–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Buzzoni C, et al. Metastatic prostate cancer incidence and prostate-specific antigen testing: new insights from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):885–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Schröder FH, et al. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):745–52.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Turner EL, et al. Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP). Br J Cancer. 2014;110(12):2829–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Lane JA, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1109–18.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Morgan RM, et al. Socioeconomic variation and prostate specific antigen testing in the community: a United Kingdom based population study. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1207–12.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Moss SM, et al. Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot. Gut. 2012;61(1):101–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Williams N, et al. Prostate-specific antigen testing rates remain low in UK general practice: a cross-sectional study in six English cities. BJU Int. 2011;108(9):1402–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Banks E, et al. Comparison of various characteristics of women who do and do not attend for breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4(1):R1.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hansen BT, et al. Factors associated with non-attendance, opportunistic attendance and reminded attendance to cervical screening in an organized screening program: a cross-sectional study of 12,058 Norwegian women. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Johns LE, Moss SM, Trial Management Group. Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (‘Age’ trial): patterns of screening attendance. J Med Screen. 2010;17(1):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V. Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. BMJ. 2009;338:b2025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Ouedraogo S, et al. European transnational ecological deprivation index and participation in population-based breast cancer screening programmes in France. Prev Med. 2014;63:103–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ford JG, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 2008;112(2):228–42.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Burnell M, et al. Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials. Trials. 2011;12(1):1–10.CrossRef
18.
Kranse R, et al. Excess all-cause mortality in the evaluation of a screening trial to account for selective participation. J Med Screen. 2013;20(1):39–45.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gartner A, et al. Rural/urban mortality differences in England and Wales and the effect of deprivation adjustment. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1685–94.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Otto SJ, Schröder FH, de Koning HJ. Low all-cause mortality in the volunteer-based Rotterdam section of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer: self-selection bias? J Med Screen. 2004;11(2):89–92.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kilpelainen TP, et al. The Finnish prostate cancer screening trial: analyses on the screening failures. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(10):2437–43.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
Berenguer A, et al. The Spanish contribution to the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2003;92:33–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Finne P, et al. The Finnish trial of prostate cancer screening: where are we now? BJU Int. 2003;92:22–6.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hugosson J, et al. Population-based screening for prostate cancer by measuring free and total serum prostate-specific antigen in Sweden. BJU Int. 2003;92:39–43.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kwiatkowski M, et al. Features and preliminary results of prostate cancer screening in Canton Aargau, Switzerland. BJU Int. 2003;92:44–7.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Nelen V, et al. ERSPC: features and preliminary results from the Antwerp study centre. BJU Int. 2003;92:17–21.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Roobol MJ, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH. Features and preliminary results of the Dutch centre of the ERSPC (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). BJU Int. 2003;92:48–54.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Nijs HG, et al. Randomised trial of prostate cancer screening in The Netherlands: assessment of acceptance and motives for attendance. J Med Screen. 1997;4(2):102–6.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Nijs HG, et al. Why do men refuse or attend population-based screening for prostate cancer? J Public Health Med. 2000;22(3):312–6.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zarrouk M, et al. The importance of socioeconomic factors for compliance and outcome at screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-year-old men. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):50–5.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Vist GE, et al. Systematic review To determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome. BMJ: Br Med J. 2005;330(7501):1175–9.CrossRef
37.
Kane RL, Wang J, Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(3):241–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Mills EJ, et al. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(4):480–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Wright JR, et al. The importance of reporting patient recruitment details in phase III trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(6):843–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Characteristics of men responding to an invitation to undergo testing for prostate cancer as part of a randomised trial
Authors
Eleanor I. Walsh
Emma L. Turner
J. Athene Lane
Jenny L. Donovan
David E. Neal
Freddie C. Hamdy
Richard M. Martin
and the CAP & ProtecT Trial Groups
Investigators
Research staff
Management Committee
CAP & ProtecT Trial Steering Committee
Data Monitoring Committee
Administrative staff
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1624-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue

Study protocol

EMBalance - validation of a decision support system in the early diagnostic evaluation and management plan formulation of balance disorders in primary care: study protocol of a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Research

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Study protocol

Effectiveness of an individualized program of muscular strength and endurance with aerobic training for improving germ cell cancer-related fatigue in men undergoing chemotherapy: EFICATEST study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemo-radiation for preoperative enlarged lateral nodes in advanced low rectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Fostering Effective Early Learning (FEEL) through a professional development programme for early childhood educators to improve professional practice and child outcomes in the year before formal schooling: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

On-site bundled rapid HIV/HCV testing in substance use disorder treatment programs: study protocol for a hybrid design randomized controlled trial