Individualized Estimates of Overdiagnosis in Screen-detected Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal J Natl Cancer Inst

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Oncology

Date 2014 Jan 9

PMID 24399850

Citations 22

Authors

Roman Gulati

Lurdes Y T Inoue

John L Gore

Jeffrey Katcher

Ruth Etzioni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The chance that a prostate cancer detected by screening is overdiagnosed (ie, it would not have been detected in the absence of screening) can vary widely depending on the patient's age and tumor characteristics. The purpose of this study is to use age, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level to help inform patients with screen-detected prostate cancers about the chances their cancers were overdiagnosed.

Methods: A computer microsimulation model of prostate cancer natural history was used to generate virtual life histories in the presence and absence of PSA screening, including an indicator of whether screen-detected cancers are overdiagnosed. A logistic regression model was fit to nonmetastatic patients diagnosed by screening with PSA less than 10 ng/mL, and a nomogram was created to predict the individualized risk of overdiagnosis given age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis.

Results: The calibrated microsimulation model closely reproduces observed incidence trends in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries by age, stage, and Gleason score. The fitted logistic regression predicts risks of overdiagnosis among PSA-detected patients with an area under the curve of 0.75. Chances of overdiagnosis range from 2.9% to 88.1%.

Conclusions: The chances of overdiagnosis vary considerably by age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis. The overdiagnosis nomogram presents tailored estimates of these risks based on patient and tumor information known at diagnosis and can be used to inform decisions about treating PSA-detected prostate cancers.

Citing Articles

Impact of patients' age and comorbidities on prostate cancer overdiagnosis in clinical practice.

Beltran A, Parker L, Moral-Perez I, Caballero-Romeu J, Chilet-Rosell E, Hernandez-Aguado I PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0315979.

PMID: 39970139 PMC: 11838881. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315979.

Genome-wide association study of prostate-specific antigen levels in 392,522 men identifies new loci and improves prediction across ancestry groups.

Hoffmann T, Graff R, Madduri R, Rodriguez A, Cario C, Feng K Nat Genet. 2025; 57(2):334-344.

PMID: 39930085 PMC: 11821537. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-024-02068-z.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.

Kensler K, Johnson R, Morley F, Albrair M, Dickerman B, Gulati R J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023; 116(1):34-52.

PMID: 37713266 PMC: 10777677. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad193.

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening.

Kachuri L, Hoffmann T, Jiang Y, Berndt S, Shelley J, Schaffer K Nat Med. 2023; 29(6):1412-1423.

PMID: 37264206 PMC: 10287565. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02277-9.

Harm-to-Benefit of Three Decades of Prostate Cancer Screening in Black Men.

Basourakos S, Gulati R, Vince Jr R, Spratt D, Lewicki P, Hill A NEJM Evid. 2022; 1(6).

PMID: 35721307 PMC: 9202998. DOI: 10.1056/evidoa2200031.

References

Gulati R, Inoue L, Katcher J, Hazelton W, Etzioni R . Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control. Biostatistics. 2010; 11(4):707-19. PMC: 2950791. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq036. View

Partin A, Kattan M, Subong E, Walsh P, Wojno K, Oesterling J . Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997; 277(18):1445-51. View

Wilt T, Brawer M, Jones K, Barry M, Aronson W, Fox S . Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203-13. PMC: 3429335. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. View

Chou R, Croswell J, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R . Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(11):762-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375. View

Kattan M, Eastham J, Wheeler T, Maru N, Scardino P, Erbersdobler A . Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol. 2003; 170(5):1792-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091806.70171.41. View

Pinsky P, Andriole G, Kramer B, Hayes R, Prorok P, Gohagan J . Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial. J Urol. 2005; 173(3):746-50. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152697.25708.71. View

Kattan M . Do we need more nomograms for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer?. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008; 5(7):366-7. DOI: 10.1038/ncpuro1128. View

Etzioni R, Howlader N, Shaw P, Ankerst D, Penson D, Goodman P . Long-term effects of finasteride on prostate specific antigen levels: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Urol. 2005; 174(3):877-81. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169255.64518.fb. View

Gulati R, Gore J, Etzioni R . Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(3):145-53. PMC: 3738063. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003. View

10.

Presti Jr J, Chang J, Bhargava V, Shinohara K . The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 1999; 163(1):163-6; discussion 166-7. View

11.

Cho H, Mariotto A, Mann B, Klabunde C, Feuer E . Assessing non-cancer-related health status of US cancer patients: other-cause survival and comorbidity prevalence. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 178(3):339-49. PMC: 3816346. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws580. View

12.

Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S, Wegelin J . Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control. 2007; 19(2):175-81. PMC: 3064270. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-007-9083-8. View

13.

Mariotto A, Etzioni R, Krapcho M, Feuer E . Reconstructing PSA testing patterns between black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2007; 109(9):1877-86. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22607. View

14.

Babaian R, Toi A, Kamoi K, Troncoso P, Sweet J, Evans R . A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 1999; 163(1):152-7. View

15.

Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R . Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(6):374-83. PMC: 2720697. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp001. View

16.

Thompson I, Goodman P, Tangen C, Lucia M, Miller G, Ford L . The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(3):215-24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa030660. View

17.

Gulati R, Wever E, Tsodikov A, Penson D, Inoue L, Katcher J . What if I don't treat my PSA-detected prostate cancer? Answers from three natural history models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(5):740-50. PMC: 3091266. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0718. View