Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860675›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2019

Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study.

Tom Callender, Mark Emberton, Steve Morris, Ros Eeles, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Paul D P Pharoah, Nora Pashayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Can polygenic risk scores contribute to cost-effective cancer screening? A systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. The Multiethnic Cohort: A Resource for the Study of Genetic and Nongenetic Cancer Risk across Populations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tom CallenderDepartment of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8440-9433
Mark EmbertonFaculty of Medical Sciences, School of Life & Medical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4230-0338
Steve MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-3563
Ros EelesThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7472-5384
Zsofia Kote-JaraiThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6329-5155
Paul D P PharoahDepartments of Oncology, and Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8494-732X
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27935
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force supports individualised decision-making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening in men aged 55-69. Knowing how the potential benefits and harms of screening vary by an individual's risk of developing prostate cancer could inform decision-making about screening at both an individual and population level. This modelling study examined the benefit-harm tradeoffs and the cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening programme compared to age-based and no screening. METHODS AND

findingsA life-table model, projecting age-specific prostate cancer incidence and mortality, was developed of a hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England aged 55 to 69 years with follow-up to age 90. Risk thresholds were based on age and polygenic profile. We compared no screening, age-based screening (quadrennial PSA testing from 55 to 69), and risk-tailored screening (men aged 55 to 69 years with a 10-year absolute risk greater than a threshold receive quadrennial PSA testing from the age they reach the risk threshold). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective, including direct costs borne by the health system for risk assessment, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We used probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for parameter uncertainty and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5% per year. Our analysis should be considered cautiously in light of limitations related to our model's cohort-based structure and the uncertainty of input parameters in mathematical models. Compared to no screening over 35 years follow-up, age-based screening prevented the most deaths from prostate cancer (39,272, 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 16,792-59,685) at the expense of 94,831 (95% UI: 84,827-105,630) overdiagnosed cancers. Age-based screening was the least cost-effective strategy studied. The greatest number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was generated by risk-based screening at a 10-year absolute risk threshold of 4%. At this threshold, risk-based screening led to one-third fewer overdiagnosed cancers (64,384, 95% UI: 57,382-72,050) but averted 6.3% fewer (9,695, 95% UI: 2,853-15,851) deaths from prostate cancer by comparison with age-based screening. Relative to no screening, risk-based screening at a 4% 10-year absolute risk threshold was cost-effective in 48.4% and 57.4% of the simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of GBP£20,000 (US$26,000) and £30,000 ($39,386) per QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening improved as the threshold rose.

conclusionsBased on the results of this modelling study, offering screening to men at higher risk could potentially reduce overdiagnosis and improve the benefit-harm tradeoff and the cost-effectiveness of a prostate cancer screening program. The optimal threshold will depend on societal judgements of the appropriate balance of benefits-harms and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansIncidenceLife TablesMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID31860675
PMCPMC6924639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.