TY - JOUR
T1 - Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer
AU - Loeb, Stacy
AU - Bjurlin, Marc A.
AU - Nicholson, Joseph
AU - Tammela, Teuvo L.
AU - Penson, David F.
AU - Carter, H. Ballentine
AU - Carroll, Peter
AU - Etzioni, Ruth
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial disclosures: Stacy Loeb certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Ruth Etzioni is supported by Award U01 CA157224 from the National Cancer Institute. Stacy Loeb is supported by the National Institutes of Health (award number K07CA178258). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
PY - 2014/6
Y1 - 2014/6
N2 - Context Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. Objective To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Evidence acquisition Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. Evidence synthesis The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. Conclusions Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. Patient summary Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.
AB - Context Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. Objective To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Evidence acquisition Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. Evidence synthesis The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. Conclusions Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. Patient summary Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.
KW - Overdiagnosis
KW - Overtreatment
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Prostate-specific antigen
KW - Screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899559783&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899559783&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
M3 - Review article
C2 - 24439788
AN - SCOPUS:84899559783
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 65
SP - 1046
EP - 1055
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 6
ER -