Table 2.

Results of traditional and extended Cox regression analyses of prostate cancer death and estimated mortality reductions in the settings of the ERSPC and PLCO intervention arms relative to no screening

					Estimated mortality reduction relative to no screening
	Cox regression analysis				Setting of ERSPC intervention arm			Setting of PLCO intervention arm
	Covariate	HR	95% CI	P	MLT	Reduction	95% CI	MLT	Reduction	95% CI
Traditional analysis
	PLCO setting	0.53	(0.45–0.62)	<0.0001
	Age	1.13	(1.11–1.14)	<0.0001
	Intervention arm	0.84	(0.73–0.96)	0.0099	n/a	16%	(4–27%)	n/a	16%	(4–27%)
Extended analyses
Empirical	PLCO setting	0.57	(0.48–0.67)	<0.0001
	Age	1.13	(1.11–1.14)	<0.0001
	MLT	0.92	(0.87–0.97)	0.0027	3.96	29%	(11–43%)	4.02	29%	(11–44%)
FHCRC	PLCO setting	0.58	(0.49–0.69)	<0.0001
	Age	1.13	(1.11–1.14)	<0.0001
	MLT	0.93	(0.88–0.97)	0.0029	4.00	27%	(10–40%)	4.10	27%	(10–41%)
MISCAN	PLCO setting	0.63	(0.51–0.77)	<0.0001
	Age	1.13	(1.11–1.14)	<0.0001
	MLT	0.92	(0.87–0.97)	0.0032	3.49	25%	(9–38%)	4.62	32%	(12–47%)
UMICH	PLCO setting	0.57	(0.48–0.68)	<0.0001
	Age	1.13	(1.11–1.14)	<0.0001
	MLT	0.91	(0.85–0.97)	0.0029	3.83	31%	(12–45%)	4.01	32%	(12–47%)

ERSPC=European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer; PLCO=Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial; HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval; PLCO setting=indicator of PLCO setting relative to the ERSPC setting to account for differential baseline risk of prostate cancer death; Age=participant age at randomization (continuous); Intervention arm=indicator of randomization to intervention arm; MLT=mean lead time (continuous) estimated in each trial arm by the specified estimation approach; FHCRC=Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; MISCAN=Erasmus University Medical Center MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis; UMICH=University of Michigan