Effects of prostate cancer screening on health-related quality of life: Results of the Finnish arm of the European randomized screening trial (ERSPC)

Figures & data

Figure 1. The recruitment of study participants.

Table I. Sociodemographic and lifestyle factors among subjects included at various phases of the screening program. Information on marital status, level of education and physical exercise were not collected at the time when men were informed of the screening results.

	(1) Invitation (n = 293) n (%)	(2) Attendance (n = 386) n (%)	(3) Screening result (n = 271) n (%)	Statistical significance**
Marital status Unmarried Married/Cohabitation Divorced Widow	15 (5) 240 (82) 30 (10) 8 (3)	25 (6) 317 (82) 29 (8) 15 (4)	NA*	0.46
Level of education Elementary/Secondary school Vocational school/Institute University/College Not known	121 (41) 75 (26) 63 (22) 34 (11)	159 (41) 107 (28) 78 (20) 42 (11)	NA*	0.68
Employment Full/Part-time employed Unemployed Retired Not known	131 (45) 25 (9) 104 (35) 33 (11)	141 (37) 52 (13) 141 (37) 52 (13)	105 (39) 26 (10) 107 (39) 33 (12)	0.17
Socioeconomic position Higher Lower Retired Not known	84 (29) 73 (25) 116 (40) 20 (6)	90 (23) 104 (27) 178 (46) 14 (4)	75 (28) 62 (23) 121 (45) 13 (5)	0.51
Smoking No Yes Not known	183 (62) 107 (37) 3 (1)	242 (63) 142 (37) 2	175 (65) 96 (35)	0.56
Physical exercise ≥1/2; hours (leisure time) Not at all Occasionally Regularly once a week or less Regularly twice a week At least 3 times a week Not known	7 (2) 72 (25) 40 (14) 48 (16) 121 (41) 2 (1)	10 (3) 80 (21) 35 (9) 71 (18) 183 (47) 7 (2)	NA*	0.30

*NA, not available; **p for difference between samples, i.e. (1) vs. (2) for marital status, level of education and physical exercise, (1) vs. (2) vs. (3) for employment, socioeconomic status and smoking.

Table II. Health-related quality of life as RAND-36 scores (all eight subscales) (median, 25th–75th percentiles) at five different screening phases and the reference values of the general Finnish male population (aged 60–64). Comparison is always performed with the previous phase of the screening programme. Statistically significant changes in bold.

Quality of life dimension	(1) Invitation	(2) (After) Screening attendance	(3) Screening result	(4) Digital rectal examination	(5) Diagnostic examination (transrectal ultrasound and biopsy)	Age-stratified general male population (aged 60–64)
Physical function	90 (80–95)	90 (80–100)	90 (80–95)	90 (80–95)	90 (80–95)	81.1
Role-physical	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	70.8
Role-emotional	100 (67–100)	100 (67–100)	100 (67–100)	94 (67–100)**	100 (67–100)	74.5
Energy/Fatigue	70 (55–85)	75 (60–85)	75 (60–85)	75 (60–85)	75 (60–85)	70.9
Mental health	84 (69–92)	84 (72–92)	80 (72–92)	84 (72–92)	84 (68–82)	76.9
Social function	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	95 (75–100)*	100 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	86.1
Pain	90 (68–100)	90 (68–100)	90 (68–100)	80 (68–100)	90 (78–100)***	77.7
General health	65 (50–75)	65 (50–75)	65 (50–75)	65 (45–75)	65 (50–75)	56.8

*p = 0.035; 3 vs. 2; **p = 0.005; 4 vs. 3; ***p = 0.003; 5 vs. 4.