Harry J de Koning1, Roman Gulati2, Sue M Moss3, Jonas Hugosson4, Paul F Pinsky5, Christine D Berg6, Anssi Auvinen7, Gerald L Andriole8, Monique J Roobol9, E David Crawford10, Vera Nelen11, Maciej Kwiatkowski12, Marco Zappa13, Marcos Luján14, Arnauld Villers15, Tiago M de Carvalho1, Eric J Feuer16, Alex Tsodikov17, Angela B Mariotto16, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk1, Ruth Etzioni2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 3. Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden. 5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. 8. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 9. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Urologic Oncology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 11. Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium. 12. Department of Urology, Aarau Canton Hospital, Aarau, Switzerland. 13. Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy. 14. Urology Service, Infanta Cristina University Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain. 15. Department of Urology, Regional University Hospital Center, Lille, France. 16. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 17. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206.
BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206.
Authors: Leonard P Bokhorst; Chris H Bangma; Geert J L H van Leenders; Jan J Lous; Sue M Moss; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Michael K Liem; Ida J Korfage; Jan J Lous; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2003-06-20 Impact factor: 7.396
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: Paul F Pinsky; Amanda Black; Howard L Parnes; Robert Grubb; E David Crawford; Anthony Miller; Douglas Reding; Gerald Andriole Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Mia Djulbegovic; Rebecca J Beyth; Molly M Neuberger; Taryn L Stoffs; Johannes Vieweg; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Philipp Dahm Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-09-14
Authors: Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jan Adolfsson; Anssi Auvinen; Monique J Roobol; Jonas Hugosson; Harry J de Koning Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sanny Kappen; Geertruida H de Bock; Eunice Sirri; Claudia Vohmann; Joachim Kieschke; Alexander Winter Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.101