Dhamanpreet Kaur1, Ernesto Ulloa-Pérez2, Roman Gulati1, Ruth Etzioni1. 1. Program in Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in prostate cancer survival (PCS) narrowed during the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, suggesting that screening may induce more equitable outcomes. However, the effects of lead time and overdiagnosis can inflate survival even without real screening benefit. METHODS: A simulation model of PCS in the early PSA era (1991-2000) was created. The modeled survival started with baseline survival in the pre-PSA era (1975-1990) and added lead times and overdiagnosis using estimates from published studies. The authors quantified 1) discrepancies between modeled and observed PCS in the PSA era and 2) residual period effects on PCS given specified values for screening benefit. RESULTS: Lead time and overdiagnosis explained more of the improvement in PCS for older ages at diagnosis (46% [95% confidence interval (CI), 44%-50%] for blacks and 51% [95% CI, 50%-52%] for all races ages 50-54 years vs 98% [95% CI, 97%-99%] for blacks and 100% for all races ages 75-79 years). They also explained more of the narrowing in PCS disparities for older ages (33% [95% CI, 31%-43%] for men ages 50-54 years vs 74% [95% CI, 71%-81%] for men ages 75-79 years). The period effects amounted to reductions of 27% to 40% among blacks and 26% to 38% among all races in the risk of prostate cancer death, depending on the screening benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Real improvements in survival disparities in the PSA era are smaller than those observed and reflect similar reductions in the risk of prostate cancer death among blacks and all races. Understanding screening artifacts is necessary for valid interpretation of observed survival trends. Cancer 2018;124:1752-9.
BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in prostate cancer survival (PCS) narrowed during the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, suggesting that screening may induce more equitable outcomes. However, the effects of lead time and overdiagnosis can inflate survival even without real screening benefit. METHODS: A simulation model of PCS in the early PSA era (1991-2000) was created. The modeled survival started with baseline survival in the pre-PSA era (1975-1990) and added lead times and overdiagnosis using estimates from published studies. The authors quantified 1) discrepancies between modeled and observed PCS in the PSA era and 2) residual period effects on PCS given specified values for screening benefit. RESULTS: Lead time and overdiagnosis explained more of the improvement in PCS for older ages at diagnosis (46% [95% confidence interval (CI), 44%-50%] for blacks and 51% [95% CI, 50%-52%] for all races ages 50-54 years vs 98% [95% CI, 97%-99%] for blacks and 100% for all races ages 75-79 years). They also explained more of the narrowing in PCS disparities for older ages (33% [95% CI, 31%-43%] for men ages 50-54 years vs 74% [95% CI, 71%-81%] for men ages 75-79 years). The period effects amounted to reductions of 27% to 40% among blacks and 26% to 38% among all races in the risk of prostate cancer death, depending on the screening benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Real improvements in survival disparities in the PSA era are smaller than those observed and reflect similar reductions in the risk of prostate cancer death among blacks and all races. Understanding screening artifacts is necessary for valid interpretation of observed survival trends. Cancer 2018;124:1752-9.
Authors: Alex Tsodikov; Roman Gulati; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; Angela B Mariotto; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Léo Blank; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Johan Mattelaer; José Lopez Torecilla; J Rafael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Alfredo Zurlo; Marianne Pierart Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Isaac J Powell; Fawn D Vigneau; Cathryn H Bock; Julie Ruterbusch; Lance K Heilbrun Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jane M Lange; Aaron A Laviana; David F Penson; Daniel W Lin; Anna Bill-Axelson; Sigrid V Carlsson; Lisa F Newcomb; Bruce J Trock; H Ballentine Carter; Peter R Carroll; Mathew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Ruth B Etzioni Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yaw A Nyame; Roman Gulati; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 11.816