Dataset Information

Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

ABSTRACT: While the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening is uncertain, a significant proportion of screen-detected cases is overdiagnosed. In order to make screening worthwhile, it is necessary to find policies that minimize overdiagnosis, without significantly increasing prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Using a microsimulation model (MISCAN) we project the outcomes of 83 screening policies in the US population, with different start and stop ages, screening frequencies, strategies where the PSA value changes the screening frequency, and strategies in which the PSA threshold (PSAt) increases with age. In the basecase strategy, yearly screening 50-74 with a PSAt of 3, the lifetime risk of PCM and overdiagnosis equals, respectively, 2.4 and 3.8%. The policies that reduce overdiagnosis the most (for maximum PCM increases relative to basecase of 1%, 3%, and 5%, respectively) are with a PSAt of 3, (1) yearly screening 50-74 where, if PSA <1 at age 65 or older, frequency becomes 4 years, with 3.6% (5.9% reduction), (2) 2-year screening 50-72, with 2.9% (24.3% reduction), and (3) yearly screening 50-70 (PSAt of 4 after age 66), with 2.2% (43.4% reduction). Stopping screening at age 70 is a reasonable way to reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Decreasing the stopping age has a larger effect on overdiagnosis reduction than reducing the screen frequency. Screening policies where the frequency of screening depends on PSA result or in which the PSAt changes with age did not substantially improve the balance of harms and benefits relative to simple yearly screening.

SUBMITTER: de Carvalho TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6452024 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

de Carvalho Tiago M TM Heijnsdijk Eveline A M EA de Koning Harry J HJ

International journal of cancer 20140901 7

While the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening is uncertain, a significant proportion of screen-detected cases is overdiagnosed. In order to make screening worthwhile, it is necessary to find policies that minimize overdiagnosis, without significantly increasing prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Using a microsimulation model (MISCAN) we project the outcomes of 83 screening policies in the US population, with different start and stop ages, screening frequencies, strategies wh ...[more]

PMID: 25123412

Similar Datasets

Project description:The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the harms of existing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies outweigh the benefits.To evaluate comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA screening strategies.Microsimulation model of prostate cancer incidence and mortality quantifying harms and lives saved for alternative PSA screening strategies.National and trial data on PSA growth, screening and biopsy patterns, incidence, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, and mortality.A contemporary cohort of U.S. men.Lifetime.Societal.35 screening strategies that vary by start and stop ages, screening intervals, and thresholds for biopsy referral.PSA tests, false-positive test results, cancer detected, overdiagnoses, prostate cancer deaths, lives saved, and months of life saved.Without screening, the risk for prostate cancer death is 2.86%. A reference strategy that screens men aged 50 to 74 years annually with a PSA threshold for biopsy referral of 4 µg/L reduces the risk for prostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%. A strategy that uses higher PSA thresholds for biopsy referral in older men achieves a similar risk for prostate cancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%. A strategy that screens biennially with longer screening intervals for men with low PSA levels achieves similar risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and false-positive results by 50%.Varying incidence inputs or reducing the survival improvement due to screening did not change conclusions.The model is a simplification of the natural history of prostate cancer, and improvement in survival due to screening is uncertain.Compared with standard screening, PSA screening strategies that use higher thresholds for biopsy referral for older men and that screen men with low PSA levels less frequently can reduce harms while preserving lives.National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Project description:BackgroundA third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study.MethodsWe developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs.FindingsAAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life.InterpretationBy UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:BackgroundCancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer.ObjectiveTo describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement.DesignReview of guidelines.SettingUnited States.PatientsPatients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines.MeasurementsInformation was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type.ResultsHarms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type.LimitationsThis review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines.ConclusionThe review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

Dataset Information

Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

Publications

Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets