Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials

The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening

Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati, Matt Cooperberg, David Penson, Noel Weiss, Ian Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background:: The US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer based primarily on evidence from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Objective: To examine limitations of basing screening policy on evidence from screening trials. Methods:: We reviewed published modeling studies that examined population and trial data. The studies (1) project the roles of screening and changes in primary treatment in the US mortality decline; (2) extrapolate the ERSPC mortality reduction to the long-term US setting; (3) estimate overdiagnosis based on US incidence trends; and (4) quantify the impact of control arm screening on PLCO mortality results. Results: Screening plausibly explains 45% and changes in primary treatment can explain 33% of the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Extrapolating the ERSPC results to the long-term US setting implies an absolute mortality reduction at least 5 times greater than that observed in the trial. Approximately 28% of screen-detected cases are overdiagnosed in the United States versus 58% of screen-detected cases suggested by the ERSPC results. Control arm screening can explain the null result in the PLCO trial. Conclusions: Modeling studies indicate that population trends and trial results extended to the long-term population setting are consistent with greater benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening-and more favorable harm-benefit tradeoffs-than has been suggested by empirical trial evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)295-300
Number of pages6
JournalMedical care
Volume51
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Early Detection of Cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms
Mortality
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostate
Population
Lung
Ovarian Neoplasms
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lung Neoplasms
Incidence

Keywords

  • mass screening
  • policy development
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • simulation modeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials : The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening. / Etzioni, Ruth; Gulati, Roman; Cooperberg, Matt; Penson, David; Weiss, Noel; Thompson, Ian.

In: Medical care, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.04.2013, p. 295-300.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Etzioni, Ruth ; Gulati, Roman ; Cooperberg, Matt ; Penson, David ; Weiss, Noel ; Thompson, Ian. / Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials : The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening. In: Medical care. 2013 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 295-300.
@article{4937284b19fd4d8aa90a9b2ae69a81d6,
title = "Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials: The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening",
abstract = "Background:: The US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer based primarily on evidence from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Objective: To examine limitations of basing screening policy on evidence from screening trials. Methods:: We reviewed published modeling studies that examined population and trial data. The studies (1) project the roles of screening and changes in primary treatment in the US mortality decline; (2) extrapolate the ERSPC mortality reduction to the long-term US setting; (3) estimate overdiagnosis based on US incidence trends; and (4) quantify the impact of control arm screening on PLCO mortality results. Results: Screening plausibly explains 45{\%} and changes in primary treatment can explain 33{\%} of the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Extrapolating the ERSPC results to the long-term US setting implies an absolute mortality reduction at least 5 times greater than that observed in the trial. Approximately 28{\%} of screen-detected cases are overdiagnosed in the United States versus 58{\%} of screen-detected cases suggested by the ERSPC results. Control arm screening can explain the null result in the PLCO trial. Conclusions: Modeling studies indicate that population trends and trial results extended to the long-term population setting are consistent with greater benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening-and more favorable harm-benefit tradeoffs-than has been suggested by empirical trial evidence.",
keywords = "mass screening, policy development, prostatic neoplasms, simulation modeling",
author = "Ruth Etzioni and Roman Gulati and Matt Cooperberg and David Penson and Noel Weiss and Ian Thompson",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da979",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "295--300",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials

T2 - The US preventive services task force and prostate cancer screening

AU - Etzioni, Ruth

AU - Gulati, Roman

AU - Cooperberg, Matt

AU - Penson, David

AU - Weiss, Noel

AU - Thompson, Ian

PY - 2013/4/1

Y1 - 2013/4/1

N2 - Background:: The US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer based primarily on evidence from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Objective: To examine limitations of basing screening policy on evidence from screening trials. Methods:: We reviewed published modeling studies that examined population and trial data. The studies (1) project the roles of screening and changes in primary treatment in the US mortality decline; (2) extrapolate the ERSPC mortality reduction to the long-term US setting; (3) estimate overdiagnosis based on US incidence trends; and (4) quantify the impact of control arm screening on PLCO mortality results. Results: Screening plausibly explains 45% and changes in primary treatment can explain 33% of the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Extrapolating the ERSPC results to the long-term US setting implies an absolute mortality reduction at least 5 times greater than that observed in the trial. Approximately 28% of screen-detected cases are overdiagnosed in the United States versus 58% of screen-detected cases suggested by the ERSPC results. Control arm screening can explain the null result in the PLCO trial. Conclusions: Modeling studies indicate that population trends and trial results extended to the long-term population setting are consistent with greater benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening-and more favorable harm-benefit tradeoffs-than has been suggested by empirical trial evidence.

AB - Background:: The US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer based primarily on evidence from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Objective: To examine limitations of basing screening policy on evidence from screening trials. Methods:: We reviewed published modeling studies that examined population and trial data. The studies (1) project the roles of screening and changes in primary treatment in the US mortality decline; (2) extrapolate the ERSPC mortality reduction to the long-term US setting; (3) estimate overdiagnosis based on US incidence trends; and (4) quantify the impact of control arm screening on PLCO mortality results. Results: Screening plausibly explains 45% and changes in primary treatment can explain 33% of the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Extrapolating the ERSPC results to the long-term US setting implies an absolute mortality reduction at least 5 times greater than that observed in the trial. Approximately 28% of screen-detected cases are overdiagnosed in the United States versus 58% of screen-detected cases suggested by the ERSPC results. Control arm screening can explain the null result in the PLCO trial. Conclusions: Modeling studies indicate that population trends and trial results extended to the long-term population setting are consistent with greater benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening-and more favorable harm-benefit tradeoffs-than has been suggested by empirical trial evidence.

KW - mass screening

KW - policy development

KW - prostatic neoplasms

KW - simulation modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884211358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884211358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da979

DO - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da979

M3 - Review article

VL - 51

SP - 295

EP - 300

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 4

ER -