Literature DB >> 23381039

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

Roman Gulati1, John L Gore, Ruth Etzioni.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the harms of existing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies outweigh the benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA screening strategies.
DESIGN: Microsimulation model of prostate cancer incidence and mortality quantifying harms and lives saved for alternative PSA screening strategies. DATA SOURCES: National and trial data on PSA growth, screening and biopsy patterns, incidence, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, and mortality. TARGET POPULATION: A contemporary cohort of U.S. men. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: 35 screening strategies that vary by start and stop ages, screening intervals, and thresholds for biopsy referral. OUTCOME MEASURES: PSA tests, false-positive test results, cancer detected, overdiagnoses, prostate cancer deaths, lives saved, and months of life saved. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without screening, the risk for prostate cancer death is 2.86%. A reference strategy that screens men aged 50 to 74 years annually with a PSA threshold for biopsy referral of 4 µg/L reduces the risk for prostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%. A strategy that uses higher PSA thresholds for biopsy referral in older men achieves a similar risk for prostate cancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%. A strategy that screens biennially with longer screening intervals for men with low PSA levels achieves similar risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and false-positive results by 50%. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Varying incidence inputs or reducing the survival improvement due to screening did not change conclusions. LIMITATION: The model is a simplification of the natural history of prostate cancer, and improvement in survival due to screening is uncertain.
CONCLUSION: Compared with standard screening, PSA screening strategies that use higher thresholds for biopsy referral for older men and that screen men with low PSA levels less frequently can reduce harms while preserving lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23381039      PMCID: PMC3738063          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  40 in total

1.  Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Lurdes Inoue; Jeffrey Katcher; William Hazelton; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  What is the true number needed to screen and treat to save a life with prostate-specific antigen testing?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Edward F Vonesh; E Jeffrey Metter; H Ballentine Carter; Peter H Gann; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Comorbidity and mortality results from a randomized prostate cancer screening trial.

Authors:  E David Crawford; Robert Grubb; Amanda Black; Gerald L Andriole; Ming-Hui Chen; Grant Izmirlian; Christine D Berg; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer early detection.

Authors:  Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Commentary on "prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: Mortality results after 13 years of follow-up". Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O'Brien B, Ragard LR, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hsing AW, Izmirlian G, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC; PLCO Project Team.Collaborators (18) Buring JE, Alberts D, Carter HB, Chodak G, Hawk E, Malm H, Mayer RJ, Piantadosi S, Silvestri GA, Thompson IM, Westhoff CL, Kahn JP, Levin B, DeMets D, O'Fallon JR, Porter AT, Ashton MM, Black WC, Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA: J. Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104(2):125-32. Epub January 6, 2012.

Authors:  Joseph A Smith
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Elisabeth M Wever; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeffrey Katcher; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  69 in total

1.  Reconsidering the Trade-offs of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan E Shoag; Yaw A Nyame; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Jim C Hu
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Overdiagnosis and Lives Saved by Reflex Testing Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Todd M Morgan; Teresa A'mar; Sarah P Psutka; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  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

4.  Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Dimitris Bertsimas; John Silberholz; Thomas Trikalinos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2016-09-17

5.  Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  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

7.  Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Roman Gulati; Angela B Mariotto; Clyde B Schechter; Tiago M de Carvalho; Amy B Knudsen; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Chester Pabiniak; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Karen M Kuntz; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Is prostate cancer different in black men? Answers from 3 natural history models.

Authors:  Alex Tsodikov; Roman Gulati; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; Angela B Mariotto; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  [PSA screening 2013: background and perspectives].

Authors:  F Recker; D Seiler; B Seifert; M Randazzo; M Kwiatkowski
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.