Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening

Importance of methods and context

Gerrit Draisma, Ruth Etzioni, Alex Tsodikov, Angela Mariotto, Elisabeth Wever, Roman Gulati, Eric Feuer, Harry De Koning

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

484 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The time by which prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening advances prostate cancer diagnosis, called the lead time, has been reported by several studies, but results have varied widely, with mean lead times ranging from 3 to 12 years. A quantity that is closely linked with the lead time is the overdiagnosis frequency, which is the fraction of screen-detected cancers that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Reported overdiagnosis estimates have also been variable, ranging from 25% to greater than 80% of screen-detected cancers.Methods We used three independently developed mathematical models of prostate cancer progression and detection that were calibrated to incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to estimate lead times and the fraction of overdiagnosed cancers due to PSA screening among US men aged 54-80 years in 1985-2000. Lead times were estimated by use of three definitions. We also compared US and earlier estimates from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) that were calculated by use of a microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model.ResultsThe models yielded similar estimates for each definition of lead time, but estimates differed across definitions. Among screen-detected cancers that would have been diagnosed in the patients' lifetimes, the estimated mean lead time ranged from 5.4 to 6.9 years across models, and overdiagnosis ranged from 23% to 42% of all screen-detected cancers. The original MISCAN model fitted to ERSPC Rotterdam data predicted a mean lead time of 7.9 years and an overdiagnosis estimate of 66%; in the model that was calibrated to the US data, these were 6.9 years and 42%, respectively.ConclusionThe precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)374-383
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume101
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Medical Overuse
SEER Program
Theoretical Models
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Draisma, G., Etzioni, R., Tsodikov, A., Mariotto, A., Wever, E., Gulati, R., ... De Koning, H. (2009). Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: Importance of methods and context. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(6), 374-383. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp001

Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening : Importance of methods and context. / Draisma, Gerrit; Etzioni, Ruth; Tsodikov, Alex; Mariotto, Angela; Wever, Elisabeth; Gulati, Roman; Feuer, Eric; De Koning, Harry.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 101, No. 6, 01.03.2009, p. 374-383.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Draisma, G, Etzioni, R, Tsodikov, A, Mariotto, A, Wever, E, Gulati, R, Feuer, E & De Koning, H 2009, 'Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: Importance of methods and context', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 374-383. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp001
Draisma, Gerrit ; Etzioni, Ruth ; Tsodikov, Alex ; Mariotto, Angela ; Wever, Elisabeth ; Gulati, Roman ; Feuer, Eric ; De Koning, Harry. / Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening : Importance of methods and context. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009 ; Vol. 101, No. 6. pp. 374-383.
@article{cb0974553e234cc7949d6061551161b6,
title = "Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: Importance of methods and context",
abstract = "Background The time by which prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening advances prostate cancer diagnosis, called the lead time, has been reported by several studies, but results have varied widely, with mean lead times ranging from 3 to 12 years. A quantity that is closely linked with the lead time is the overdiagnosis frequency, which is the fraction of screen-detected cancers that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Reported overdiagnosis estimates have also been variable, ranging from 25{\%} to greater than 80{\%} of screen-detected cancers.Methods We used three independently developed mathematical models of prostate cancer progression and detection that were calibrated to incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to estimate lead times and the fraction of overdiagnosed cancers due to PSA screening among US men aged 54-80 years in 1985-2000. Lead times were estimated by use of three definitions. We also compared US and earlier estimates from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) that were calculated by use of a microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model.ResultsThe models yielded similar estimates for each definition of lead time, but estimates differed across definitions. Among screen-detected cancers that would have been diagnosed in the patients' lifetimes, the estimated mean lead time ranged from 5.4 to 6.9 years across models, and overdiagnosis ranged from 23{\%} to 42{\%} of all screen-detected cancers. The original MISCAN model fitted to ERSPC Rotterdam data predicted a mean lead time of 7.9 years and an overdiagnosis estimate of 66{\%}; in the model that was calibrated to the US data, these were 6.9 years and 42{\%}, respectively.ConclusionThe precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.",
author = "Gerrit Draisma and Ruth Etzioni and Alex Tsodikov and Angela Mariotto and Elisabeth Wever and Roman Gulati and Eric Feuer and {De Koning}, Harry",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djp001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "374--383",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening

T2 - Importance of methods and context

AU - Draisma, Gerrit

AU - Etzioni, Ruth

AU - Tsodikov, Alex

AU - Mariotto, Angela

AU - Wever, Elisabeth

AU - Gulati, Roman

AU - Feuer, Eric

AU - De Koning, Harry

PY - 2009/3/1

Y1 - 2009/3/1

N2 - Background The time by which prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening advances prostate cancer diagnosis, called the lead time, has been reported by several studies, but results have varied widely, with mean lead times ranging from 3 to 12 years. A quantity that is closely linked with the lead time is the overdiagnosis frequency, which is the fraction of screen-detected cancers that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Reported overdiagnosis estimates have also been variable, ranging from 25% to greater than 80% of screen-detected cancers.Methods We used three independently developed mathematical models of prostate cancer progression and detection that were calibrated to incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to estimate lead times and the fraction of overdiagnosed cancers due to PSA screening among US men aged 54-80 years in 1985-2000. Lead times were estimated by use of three definitions. We also compared US and earlier estimates from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) that were calculated by use of a microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model.ResultsThe models yielded similar estimates for each definition of lead time, but estimates differed across definitions. Among screen-detected cancers that would have been diagnosed in the patients' lifetimes, the estimated mean lead time ranged from 5.4 to 6.9 years across models, and overdiagnosis ranged from 23% to 42% of all screen-detected cancers. The original MISCAN model fitted to ERSPC Rotterdam data predicted a mean lead time of 7.9 years and an overdiagnosis estimate of 66%; in the model that was calibrated to the US data, these were 6.9 years and 42%, respectively.ConclusionThe precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.

AB - Background The time by which prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening advances prostate cancer diagnosis, called the lead time, has been reported by several studies, but results have varied widely, with mean lead times ranging from 3 to 12 years. A quantity that is closely linked with the lead time is the overdiagnosis frequency, which is the fraction of screen-detected cancers that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Reported overdiagnosis estimates have also been variable, ranging from 25% to greater than 80% of screen-detected cancers.Methods We used three independently developed mathematical models of prostate cancer progression and detection that were calibrated to incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to estimate lead times and the fraction of overdiagnosed cancers due to PSA screening among US men aged 54-80 years in 1985-2000. Lead times were estimated by use of three definitions. We also compared US and earlier estimates from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) that were calculated by use of a microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model.ResultsThe models yielded similar estimates for each definition of lead time, but estimates differed across definitions. Among screen-detected cancers that would have been diagnosed in the patients' lifetimes, the estimated mean lead time ranged from 5.4 to 6.9 years across models, and overdiagnosis ranged from 23% to 42% of all screen-detected cancers. The original MISCAN model fitted to ERSPC Rotterdam data predicted a mean lead time of 7.9 years and an overdiagnosis estimate of 66%; in the model that was calibrated to the US data, these were 6.9 years and 42%, respectively.ConclusionThe precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64949135826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64949135826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djp001

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djp001

M3 - Article

VL - 101

SP - 374

EP - 383

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 6

ER -