Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19276453›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2009

Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context.

Gerrit Draisma, Ruth Etzioni, Alex Tsodikov, Angela Mariotto, Elisabeth Wever, Roman Gulati, Eric Feuer, Harry de Koning

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 362 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
362citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

362 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Active surveillance for prostate cancer.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

302 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gerrit DraismaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. g.draisma@erasmusmc.nl
Ruth Etzioni
Alex Tsodikov
Angela Mariotto
Elisabeth Wever
Roman Gulati
Eric Feuer
Harry de Koning

Funding

PSA SCREENING AND US PROSTATE CANCER TRENDSU01CA088160 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2000 to 2009
$2.7M
Survival Effects of Prostate Cancer SurveillanceU01CA097414 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI TSODIKOV, ALEXANDER · 2002 to 2009
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088160NCI NIH HHS U01 CA097414NCI NIH HHS U01-CA88160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionThe precise definition and the population used to estimate lead time and overdiagnosis can be important drivers of study results and should be clearly specified.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerModels, TheoreticalAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorEuropeHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalNetherlandsProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID19276453
PMCPMC2720697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.