Sigrid V Carlsson1,2,3, Tiago M de Carvalho4, Monique J Roobol5, Jonas Hugosson6,7, Anssi Auvinen8, Maciej Kwiatkowski9,10, Arnauld Villers11, Marco Zappa12, Vera Nelen13, Alvaro Páez14, James A Eastham15, Hans Lilja15,16,17,18,19, Harry J de Koning4, Andrew J Vickers20, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk4. 1. Deptartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. carlssos@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. carlssos@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. carlssos@mskcc.org. 4. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 7. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. School of Health Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland. 9. Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 10. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany. 11. Department of Urology, Lille University Hospital, University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France. 12. Unit of Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Research and Prevention-ISPO, Florence, Italy. 13. Provincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium. 14. Department of Urology, Fuenlabrada University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 15. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 16. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 17. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 18. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 19. Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden. 20. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus "good practice." METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386-3393.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus "good practice." METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386-3393.
Keywords:
early detection of cancer/adverse effects; mass screening; prostate-specific antigen/blood; prostatic neoplasms; quality of life; quality-adjusted-life-years
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael W Drazer; Sandip M Prasad; Dezheng Huo; Mara A Schonberg; William Dale; Russell Z Szmulewitz; Scott E Eggener Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Izak Faiena; Stuart Holden; Mathew R Cooperberg; Stuart Holden; Howard R Soule; Jonathan W Simons; Todd M Morgan; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Roffman; Gregory R Hart; Michael S Leapman; James B Yu; Fangliang L Guo; Issa Ali; Jun Deng Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-12
Authors: Maria Frånlund; Marianne Månsson; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Gunnar Aus; Erik Holmberg; Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Pär Lodding; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Johan Stranne; Hans Lilja; Jonas Hugosson Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 7.600