PSA testing, cancer treatment, and prostate cancer mortality reduction: What is the mechanism?

Author(s):  
Peter C. Albertsen
Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 3064
Author(s):  
Jean-Emmanuel Bibault ◽  
Steven Hancock ◽  
Mark K. Buyyounouski ◽  
Hilary Bagshaw ◽  
John T. Leppert ◽  
...  

Prostate cancer treatment strategies are guided by risk-stratification. This stratification can be difficult in some patients with known comorbidities. New models are needed to guide strategies and determine which patients are at risk of prostate cancer mortality. This article presents a gradient-boosting model to predict the risk of prostate cancer mortality within 10 years after a cancer diagnosis, and to provide an interpretable prediction. This work uses prospective data from the PLCO Cancer Screening and selected patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer. During follow-up, 8776 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The dataset was randomly split into a training (n = 7021) and testing (n = 1755) dataset. Accuracy was 0.98 (±0.01), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.80 (±0.04). This model can be used to support informed decision-making in prostate cancer treatment. AI interpretability provides a novel understanding of the predictions to the users.


2001 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry J. de Koning ◽  
Michael K. Liem ◽  
Caroline A. Baan ◽  
Rob Boer ◽  
Fritz H. Schröder ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 550-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth M. Wever ◽  
Gerrit Draisma ◽  
Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk ◽  
Harry J. de Koning

Background. Simulation models are essential tools for estimating benefits of cancer screening programs. Such models include a screening-effect model that represents how early detection by screening followed by treatment affects disease-specific survival. Two commonly used screening-effect models are the stage-shift model, where mortality benefits are explained by the shift to more favorable stages, and the cure model, where early detection enhances the chances of cure from disease. Objective. This article describes commonly used screening-effect models and analyses their predicted mortality benefit in a model for prostate cancer screening. Method. The MISCAN simulation model was used to predict the reduction of prostate cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam. The screening-effect models were included in the model. For each model the predictions of prostate cancer mortality reduction were calculated. The study compared 4 screening-effect models, which are versions of the stage-shift model or the cure model. Results. The stage-shift models predicted, after a follow-up of 9 years, reductions in prostate cancer mortality varying from 38% to 63% for ERSPC-Rotterdam compared with a 27% reduction observed in the ERSPC. The cure models predicted reductions in prostate cancer mortality varying from 21% to 27%. Conclusions. The differences in predicted mortality reductions show the importance of validating models to observed trial mortality data. The stage-shift models considerably overestimated the mortality reduction. Therefore, the stage-shift models should be used with care, especially when modeling the effect of screening for cancers with long lead times, such as prostate cancer.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Hakama ◽  
Sue M Moss ◽  
Ulf-Hakan Stenman ◽  
Monique J Roobol ◽  
Marco Zappa ◽  
...  

Objectives To calculate design-corrected estimates of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality by centre in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Setting The ERSPC has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men invited to screening with follow-up truncated at 13 years. Centres either used pre-consent randomisation (effectiveness design) or post-consent randomisation (efficacy design). Methods In six centres (three effectiveness design, three efficacy design) with follow-up until the end of 2010, or maximum 13 years, the effect of screening was estimated as both effectiveness (mortality reduction in the target population) and efficacy (reduction in those actually screened). Results The overall crude prostate cancer mortality risk ratio in the intervention arm vs control arm for the six centres was 0.79 ranging from a 14% increase to a 38% reduction. The risk ratio was 0.85 in centres with effectiveness design and 0.73 in those with efficacy design. After correcting for design, overall efficacy was 27%, 24% in pre-consent and 29% in post-consent centres, ranging between a 12% increase and a 52% reduction. Conclusion The estimated overall effect of screening in attenders (efficacy) was a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years’ follow-up. The variation in efficacy between centres was greater than the range in risk ratio without correction for design. The centre-specific variation in the mortality reduction could not be accounted for by the randomisation method.


2013 ◽  
Vol 189 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pär Stattin ◽  
Benny Holmström ◽  
Sigrid Carlsson ◽  
Andrew Vickers ◽  
Hans Lilja ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document