Roman Gulati1, Todd M Morgan, Teresa A'mar1,2, Sarah P Psutka3, Jeffrey J Tosoian2, Ruth Etzioni1. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several prostate cancer (PCa) early-detection biomarkers are available for reflex testing in men with intermediate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Studies of these biomarkers typically provide information about diagnostic performance but not about overdiagnosis and lives saved, the primary drivers of associated harm and benefit. METHODS: We projected overdiagnoses and lives saved using an established microsimulation model of PCa incidence and mortality with screening and treatment efficacy based on randomized trials. We used this framework to evaluate four urinary reflex biomarkers (measured in 1112 men presenting for prostate biopsy at 10 US academic or community clinics) and two hypothetical ideal biomarkers (with 100% sensitivity or specificity for any or for high-grade PCa) at one-time screening tests at ages 55 and 65 years. RESULTS: Compared with biopsying all men with elevated PSA, reflex testing reduced overdiagnoses (range across ages and biomarkers = 8.8-60.6%) but also reduced lives saved (by 7.3-64.9%), producing similar overdiagnoses per life saved. The ideal biomarker for high-grade disease improved this ratio (by 35.2% at age 55 years and 42.0% at age 65 years). Results were similar under continued screening for men not diagnosed at age 55 years, but the ideal biomarker for high-grade disease produced smaller incremental improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling is a useful tool for projecting the implications of using reflex biomarkers for long-term PCa outcomes. Under simplified conditions, reflex testing with urinary biomarkers is expected to reduce overdiagnoses but also produce commensurate reductions in lives saved. Reflex testing that accurately identifies high-grade PCa could improve the net benefit of screening.
BACKGROUND: Several prostate cancer (PCa) early-detection biomarkers are available for reflex testing in men with intermediate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Studies of these biomarkers typically provide information about diagnostic performance but not about overdiagnosis and lives saved, the primary drivers of associated harm and benefit. METHODS: We projected overdiagnoses and lives saved using an established microsimulation model of PCa incidence and mortality with screening and treatment efficacy based on randomized trials. We used this framework to evaluate four urinary reflex biomarkers (measured in 1112 men presenting for prostate biopsy at 10 US academic or community clinics) and two hypothetical ideal biomarkers (with 100% sensitivity or specificity for any or for high-grade PCa) at one-time screening tests at ages 55 and 65 years. RESULTS: Compared with biopsying all men with elevated PSA, reflex testing reduced overdiagnoses (range across ages and biomarkers = 8.8-60.6%) but also reduced lives saved (by 7.3-64.9%), producing similar overdiagnoses per life saved. The ideal biomarker for high-grade disease improved this ratio (by 35.2% at age 55 years and 42.0% at age 65 years). Results were similar under continued screening for men not diagnosed at age 55 years, but the ideal biomarker for high-grade disease produced smaller incremental improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling is a useful tool for projecting the implications of using reflex biomarkers for long-term PCa outcomes. Under simplified conditions, reflex testing with urinary biomarkers is expected to reduce overdiagnoses but also produce commensurate reductions in lives saved. Reflex testing that accurately identifies high-grade PCa could improve the net benefit of screening.
Authors: Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Douglas K Owens; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; Mark Ebell; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Albert L Siu; Chien-Wen Tseng Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Marianne Månsson; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Sigrid V Carlsson; Kirsi M Talala; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Ulf H Stenman; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Sue M Moss; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Andreas Huber; Theodorus van der Kwast; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Chris Bangma; Harry J De Koning; Fritz H Schröder; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William J Catalona; Georg Bartsch; Harry G Rittenhouse; Cindy L Evans; Harry J Linton; Wolfgang Horninger; Helmut Klocker; Stephen D Mikolajczyk Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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