Roman Gulati1, John L Gore, Ruth Etzioni. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B230, PO Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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