Literature DB >> 22032753

Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates.

Roman Gulati1, Angela B Mariotto, Shu Chen, John L Gore, Ruth Etzioni.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To project long-term estimates of the number needed to screen (NNS) and the additional number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one prostate cancer death with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in Europe and in the United States. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A mathematical model of disease-specific deaths in screened and unscreened men given information on overdiagnosis, disease-specific survival in the absence of screening, screening efficacy, and other-cause mortality is presented. A simulation framework is used to incorporate competing causes of death.
RESULTS: Assuming overdiagnosis and screening efficacy consistent with European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) results, we project that, after 25 years, 262 men need to be screened and nine additional men need to be screen detected to prevent one prostate cancer death. Corresponding estimates of the NNS and the additional NNT under a range of overdiagnosis rates that are consistent with U.S. incidence are 186-220 and 2-5.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term estimates of the NNS and the additional NNT are an order of magnitude lower than the short-term estimates published with the results of the ERSPC trial and may be consistent with cost-effective PSA screening in the general U.S. population.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22032753      PMCID: PMC3517213          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  21 in total

1.  A population model of prostate cancer incidence.

Authors:  A Tsodikov; A Szabo; J Wegelin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Gerald L Andriole; Barnett S Kramer; Richard B Hayes; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection.

Authors:  M McGregor; J A Hanley; J F Boivin; R G McLean
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-12-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alex Shteynshlyuger; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks.

Authors:  H G Welch; P C Albertsen; R F Nease; T A Bubolz; J H Wasson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-03-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Screening and the number needed to treat.

Authors:  A Richardson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Cumulative cause-specific mortality for cancer patients in the presence of other causes: a crude analogue of relative survival.

Authors:  K A Cronin; E J Feuer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; David F Penson; Julie M Legler; Dante di Tommaso; Rob Boer; Peter H Gann; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Asymptomatic incidence and duration of prostate cancer.

Authors:  R Etzioni; R Cha; E J Feuer; O Davidov
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  26 in total

1.  Prostate cancer screening: facts, statistics, and interpretation in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force Review.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Andrew J Vickers; Monique Roobol; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hans Lilja; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Leslie Mallinger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  William J Catalona
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Implications of the new AUA guidelines on prostate cancer detection in the U.S.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Peter T Scardino; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ethan Basch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Beyond the black box: a systematic review of breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical screening among native and immigrant African-descent Caribbean populations.

Authors:  Nathan S Consedine; Natalie L Tuck; Camille R Ragin; Benjamin A Spencer
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2015-06

8.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Response: Reading between the lines of cancer screening trials: using modeling to understand the evidence.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.