TY - JOUR
T1 - The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening
T2 - Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials
AU - de Koning, Harry J.
AU - Gulati, Roman
AU - Moss, Sue M.
AU - Hugosson, Jonas
AU - Pinsky, Paul F.
AU - Berg, Christine D.
AU - Auvinen, Anssi
AU - Andriole, Gerald L.
AU - Roobol, Monique J.
AU - Crawford, E. David
AU - Nelen, Vera
AU - Kwiatkowski, Maciej
AU - Zappa, Marco
AU - Luján, Marcos
AU - Villers, Arnauld
AU - de Carvalho, Tiago M.
AU - Feuer, Eric J.
AU - Tsodikov, Alex
AU - Mariotto, Angela B.
AU - Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.
AU - Etzioni, Ruth
N1 - Funding Information:
Harry J. de Koning was supported by a grant from Can-Con for work performed as part of the current study and by a grant from Beckman Coulter for work performed outside of the current study. Christine D. Berg has acted as a paid consultant for Medial Early Sign LLC and GRAIL Inc for work performed outside of the current study. Anssi Auvinen has received a grant from Hybritech for work performed as part of the current study and has acted as a paid consultant for EPID Research Inc and received lecture fees from MSD for work performed outside of the current study. Gerald L. Andriole has received grants from the National Cancer Institute for work performed as part of the current study; clinical research grants from Medivation, Progenics, and Blue Earth Diagnostics; and grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Peter Michael Foundation, and the St. Louis Men’s Group Against Cancer for work performed outside of the current study. Maciej Kwiatkowski has acted as a paid consultant for Myriad and as a member of the advisory boards of Astellas and Janssen for work performed outside of the current study. Marcos Luján has received grants from Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS) (93/0903, 96/ 0248, 96/1800, 99/0245, 02/0732, and 06/0831) and from Fundacion para la Investigacion en Urologia for work performed as part of the current study. Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk has received a grant from Beckman Coulter for work performed outside of the current study.
Funding Information:
Supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant U01CA157224) as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The contents of the study are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. The interpretation and reporting of these data are solely the responsibility of the authors.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Cancer Society
PY - 2018/3/15
Y1 - 2018/3/15
N2 - BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206.
AB - BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206.
KW - modeling
KW - mortality reduction
KW - prostate cancer
KW - prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043348239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/cncr.31178
DO - 10.1002/cncr.31178
M3 - Article
C2 - 29211316
AN - SCOPUS:85043348239
SN - 0008-543X
VL - 124
SP - 1197
EP - 1206
JO - Cancer
JF - Cancer
IS - 6
ER -