Literature DB >> 27459245

Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice: A microsimulation screening analysis.

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.   

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.
© 2016 American Cancer Society. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  early detection of cancer/adverse effects; mass screening; prostate-specific antigen/blood; prostatic neoplasms; quality of life; quality-adjusted-life-years

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27459245      PMCID: PMC5073010          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  30 in total

1.  Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center.

Authors:  Andrew Vickers; Caroline Savage; Fernando Bianco; John Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Bertrand Guillonneau; Angel Cronin; Peter Scardino
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Do high-volume hospitals and surgeons provide better care in urologic oncology?

Authors:  James A Eastham
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 3.  A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy.

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

4.  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

5.  Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States.

Authors:  Michael W Drazer; Dezheng Huo; Mara A Schonberg; Aria Razmaria; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  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

7.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

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

8.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  National trends in prostate cancer screening among older American men with limited 9-year life expectancies: evidence of an increased need for shared decision making.

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

10.  Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Caroline J Savage; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  9 in total

1.  [Effect of performing a single PSA screening : The CAP trial].

Authors:  R Al-Monajjed; C Arsov; P Albers
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

3.  Prostate Cancer Screening and the Goldilocks Principle: How Much Is Just Right?

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

4.  Development and Validation of a Multiparameterized Artificial Neural Network for Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction and Stratification.

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

Review 5.  Improving the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in 2017.

Authors:  Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 6.  Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future.

Authors:  Hendrik Van Poppel; Tit Albreht; Partha Basu; Renée Hogenhout; Sarah Collen; Monique Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 16.430

7.  Results from 22 years of Followup in the Göteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial.

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

8.  Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome.

Authors:  Nuno Pereira-Azevedo; Jan F M Verbeek; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

9.  Screening for prostate cancer: are organized screening programs necessary?

Authors:  Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.