Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23381039›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2013

Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Roman Gulati, John L Gore, Ruth Etzioni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M2-B230, PO Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.
John L Gore
Ruth Etzioni
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Modeling prostate cancer control: prevention, screening, treatment, followup careU01CA157224 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2010 to 2014
$5.3M
PSA SCREENING AND US PROSTATE CANCER TRENDSU01CA088160 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2000 to 2009
$2.7M
Outcomes Based Guideline Development for Prostate Cancer Screening and TreatmentR01CA131874 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2008 to 2011
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131874NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088160NCI NIH HHS U01 CA157224NCI NIH HHS U01 CA88160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the harms of existing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies outweigh the benefits.

objectiveTo evaluate comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA screening strategies.

designMicrosimulation model of prostate cancer incidence and mortality quantifying harms and lives saved for alternative PSA screening strategies. DATA SOURCES: National and trial data on PSA growth, screening and biopsy patterns, incidence, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, and mortality. TARGET POPULATION: A contemporary cohort of U.S. men. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal.

intervention35 screening strategies that vary by start and stop ages, screening intervals, and thresholds for biopsy referral. OUTCOME MEASURES: PSA tests, false-positive test results, cancer detected, overdiagnoses, prostate cancer deaths, lives saved, and months of life saved. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without screening, the risk for prostate cancer death is 2.86%. A reference strategy that screens men aged 50 to 74 years annually with a PSA threshold for biopsy referral of 4 µg/L reduces the risk for prostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%. A strategy that uses higher PSA thresholds for biopsy referral in older men achieves a similar risk for prostate cancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%. A strategy that screens biennially with longer screening intervals for men with low PSA levels achieves similar risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and false-positive results by 50%. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Varying incidence inputs or reducing the survival improvement due to screening did not change conclusions. LIMITATION: The model is a simplification of the natural history of prostate cancer, and improvement in survival due to screening is uncertain.

conclusionCompared with standard screening, PSA screening strategies that use higher thresholds for biopsy referral for older men and that screen men with low PSA levels less frequently can reduce harms while preserving lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyComparative Effectiveness ResearchComputer SimulationEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID23381039
PMCPMC3738063
OpenAlexW2080088297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.