Lead Time and Overdiagnosis in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Importance of Methods and Context
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 10 March 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 101 (6), 374-383
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp001
Abstract
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. 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. The 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. The precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.Keywords
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- Modeling Disease Progression With Longitudinal MarkersJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2008
- Reconstructing PSA testing patterns between black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview SurveyCancer, 2007
- A population model of prostate cancer incidenceStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- Five‐year follow‐up of health‐related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancerInternational Journal of Cancer, 2005
- PROSTATE BIOPSY FOLLOWING A POSITIVE SCREEN IN THE PROSTATE, LUNG, COLORECTAL AND OVARIAN CANCER SCREENING TRIALJournal of Urology, 2005
- Combining longitudinal studies of PSABiostatistics, 2004
- Lead time associated with screening for prostate cancerInternational Journal of Cancer, 2003
- Prostate cancer mortality reduction by screening: Power and time frame with complete enrollment in the European randomised screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) trialInternational Journal of Cancer, 2001
- Would prostate cancer detected by screening withprostate-specific antigen develop into clinical cancer if left undiagnosed? A comparison of two population-based studies in SwedenBJU International, 2000
- Prostate-Specific Antigen as Predictor of Prostate Cancer in Black Men and White MenJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995