Roman Gulati1, Lurdes Y T Inoue, John L Gore, Jeffrey Katcher, Ruth Etzioni. 1. Affiliations of authors: Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA (RG, JK, RE); Department of Biostatistics (LYTI) and Department of Urology (JLG), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The chance that a prostate cancer detected by screening is overdiagnosed (ie, it would not have been detected in the absence of screening) can vary widely depending on the patient's age and tumor characteristics. The purpose of this study is to use age, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level to help inform patients with screen-detected prostate cancers about the chances their cancers were overdiagnosed. METHODS: A computer microsimulation model of prostate cancer natural history was used to generate virtual life histories in the presence and absence of PSA screening, including an indicator of whether screen-detected cancers are overdiagnosed. A logistic regression model was fit to nonmetastatic patients diagnosed by screening with PSA less than 10 ng/mL, and a nomogram was created to predict the individualized risk of overdiagnosis given age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis. RESULTS: The calibrated microsimulation model closely reproduces observed incidence trends in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries by age, stage, and Gleason score. The fitted logistic regression predicts risks of overdiagnosis among PSA-detected patients with an area under the curve of 0.75. Chances of overdiagnosis range from 2.9% to 88.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The chances of overdiagnosis vary considerably by age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis. The overdiagnosis nomogram presents tailored estimates of these risks based on patient and tumor information known at diagnosis and can be used to inform decisions about treating PSA-detected prostate cancers.
BACKGROUND: The chance that a prostate cancer detected by screening is overdiagnosed (ie, it would not have been detected in the absence of screening) can vary widely depending on the patient's age and tumor characteristics. The purpose of this study is to use age, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level to help inform patients with screen-detected prostate cancers about the chances their cancers were overdiagnosed. METHODS: A computer microsimulation model of prostate cancer natural history was used to generate virtual life histories in the presence and absence of PSA screening, including an indicator of whether screen-detected cancers are overdiagnosed. A logistic regression model was fit to nonmetastatic patients diagnosed by screening with PSA less than 10 ng/mL, and a nomogram was created to predict the individualized risk of overdiagnosis given age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis. RESULTS: The calibrated microsimulation model closely reproduces observed incidence trends in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries by age, stage, and Gleason score. The fitted logistic regression predicts risks of overdiagnosis among PSA-detected patients with an area under the curve of 0.75. Chances of overdiagnosis range from 2.9% to 88.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The chances of overdiagnosis vary considerably by age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis. The overdiagnosis nomogram presents tailored estimates of these risks based on patient and tumor information known at diagnosis and can be used to inform decisions about treating PSA-detected prostate cancers.
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
Authors: Ruth D Etzioni; Nadia Howlader; Pamela A Shaw; Donna P Ankerst; David F Penson; Phyllis J Goodman; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A W Partin; M W Kattan; E N Subong; P C Walsh; K J Wojno; J E Oesterling; P T Scardino; J D Pearson Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Gary J Miller; Leslie G Ford; Michael M Lieber; R Duane Cespedes; James N Atkins; Scott M Lippman; Susie M Carlin; Anne Ryan; Connie M Szczepanek; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 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: Joseph J Fantony; Lauren E Howard; Ilona Csizmadi; Andrew J Armstrong; Amy L Lark; Colette Galet; William J Aronson; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Marc D Ryser; Mathias Worni; Elizabeth L Turner; Jeffrey R Marks; Rick Durrett; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Amanda Black; Paul F Pinsky; Robert L Grubb; Roni T Falk; Ann W Hsing; Lisa Chu; Tamra Meyer; Timothy D Veenstra; Xia Xu; Kai Yu; Regina G Ziegler; Louise A Brinton; Robert N Hoover; Michael B Cook Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 4.254