Literature DB >> 25123412

Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

Tiago M de Carvalho1, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

While the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening is uncertain, a significant proportion of screen-detected cases is overdiagnosed. In order to make screening worthwhile, it is necessary to find policies that minimize overdiagnosis, without significantly increasing prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Using a microsimulation model (MISCAN) we project the outcomes of 83 screening policies in the US population, with different start and stop ages, screening frequencies, strategies where the PSA value changes the screening frequency, and strategies in which the PSA threshold (PSAt) increases with age. In the basecase strategy, yearly screening 50-74 with a PSAt of 3, the lifetime risk of PCM and overdiagnosis equals, respectively, 2.4 and 3.8%. The policies that reduce overdiagnosis the most (for maximum PCM increases relative to basecase of 1%, 3%, and 5%, respectively) are with a PSAt of 3, (1) yearly screening 50-74 where, if PSA <1 at age 65 or older, frequency becomes 4 years, with 3.6% (5.9% reduction), (2) 2-year screening 50-72, with 2.9% (24.3% reduction), and (3) yearly screening 50-70 (PSAt of 4 after age 66), with 2.2% (43.4% reduction). Stopping screening at age 70 is a reasonable way to reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Decreasing the stopping age has a larger effect on overdiagnosis reduction than reducing the screen frequency. Screening policies where the frequency of screening depends on PSA result or in which the PSAt changes with age did not substantially improve the balance of harms and benefits relative to simple yearly screening.
© 2014 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  microsimulation models; overdiagnosis; prostate cancer screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25123412      PMCID: PMC6452024          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  28 in total

Review 1.  Overdiagnosis in cancer.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; William C Black
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 13.506

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.  Reconstructing PSA testing patterns between black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; Ruth Etzioni; Martin Krapcho; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective.

Authors:  T Kobayashi; R Goto; K Ito; K Mitsumori
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 4.424

5.  Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Renske Postma; Fritz H Schröder; Theo H van der Kwast; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section Rotterdam).

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Dina W Roobol; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  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

10.  Mean sojourn time, overdiagnosis, and reduction in advanced stage prostate cancer due to screening with PSA: implications of sojourn time on screening.

Authors:  N Pashayan; S W Duffy; P Pharoah; D Greenberg; J Donovan; R M Martin; F Hamdy; D E Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Luc Coffeng; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  What's new in screening in 2015?

Authors:  Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.309

3.  Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years followed by active surveillance.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Estimating the risks and benefits of active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-06-26       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  The Effect of Start and Stop Age at Screening on the Risk of Being Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Sigrid Carlsson; Erik Holmberg; Johan Stranne; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Applying precision medicine to the active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chad A Reichard; Andrew J Stephenson; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  The Clinical Efficacy of Prostate Cancer Screening in Worldwide and Iran: Narrative Review.

Authors:  Shima Shahyad; Seyed Hassan Saadat; Seyed-Mostafa Hosseini-Zijoud
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2018-03-08

8.  Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Jane M Lange; Angela B Mariotto; Andrew J Vickers; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.