Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977253›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2022

Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Screening Strategies in a Low-Resource, High-risk Population in the Bahamas.

Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Roman Gulati, Jane M Lange, Alex Tsodikov, Robin Roberts, Ruth Etzioni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors.

Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Jane M LangeDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Alex TsodikovSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Robin RobertsUniversity of The West Indies School of Clinical Medicine and Research, Nassau, The Bahamas.
Ruth EtzioniDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Tissue/InformaticsP50CA186786 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu · 2014 to 2026
$27.6M
Modeling Precision Interventions for Prostate Cancer ControlU01CA253915 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D, TSODIKOV, ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
Statistical modeling to support population and translational cancer researchR50CA221836 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Roman Gulati · 2017 to 2026
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA186786NCI NIH HHS R50 CA221836NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening may be greatest in high-risk populations, including men of African descent in the Caribbean. However, organized screening may not be sustainable in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: To evaluate the expected population outcomes and resource use of conservative prostate-specific antigen screening programs in the Bahamas. Design Setting and Participants: Prostate cancer incidence from GLOBOCAN and prostate-specific antigen screening data for 4300 men from the Bahamas were used to recalibrate 2 decision analytical models previously used to study prostate-specific antigen screening for Black men in the United States. Data on age and results obtained from prostate-specific antigen screening tests performed in Nassau from 2004 to 2018 and in Freeport from 2013 to 2018 were used. Data were analyzed from January 15, 2021, to March 23, 2022. Interventions: One or 2 screenings for men aged 45 to 60 years and conservative criteria for biopsy (prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL) and curative treatment (Gleason score ≥8) were modeled. Categories of Gleason scores were 6 or lower, 7, and 8 or higher, with higher scores indicating higher risk of cancer progression and death. Main Outcomes and Measures: Projected numbers of tests and biopsies, prostate cancer (over)diagnoses, lives saved, and life-years gained owing to screening from 2022 to 2040. Results: In this decision analytical modeling study, screening histories from 4300 men (median age, 54 years; range, 13-101 years) tested between 2004 and 2018 at 2 sites in the Bahamas were used to inform the models. Screening once at 60 years of age was projected to involve 40 000 to 42 000 tests (range between models) and prevent 500 to 600 of 10 000 to 14 000 prostate cancer deaths. Screening at 50 and 60 years doubled the number of tests but increased lives saved by only 15% to 16%. Among onetime strategies, screening once at 60 years of age involved the fewest tests per life saved (74-84 tests) and curative treatments per life saved (1.2-2.8 treatments). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this decision analytical modeling study of prostate cancer screening in the Bahamas suggest that limited screening offered modest benefits that varied with screening ages and number of tests. The results can be combined with data on capacity constraints and evaluated relative to competing national public health priorities.

Indexed as

Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBahamasEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingYoung AdultProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35977253
PMCPMC9123504

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.