Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Mar;19(2):175-81.
doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9083-8. Epub 2007 Nov 20.

Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline

Affiliations

Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline

Ruth Etzioni et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: To quantify the plausible contribution of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening to the nearly 30% decline in the US prostate cancer mortality rate observed during the 1990s.

Methods: Two mathematical modeling teams of the US National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network independently projected disease mortality in the absence and presence of PSA screening. Both teams relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data for disease incidence, used common estimates of PSA screening rates, and assumed that screening, by shifting disease from distant to local-regional clinical stage, confers a corresponding improvement in disease-specific survival.

Results: The teams projected similar mortality increases in the absence of screening and decreases in the presence of screening after 1985. By 2000, the models projected that 45% (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center) to 70% (University of Michigan) of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality could be plausibly attributed to the stage shift induced by screening.

Conclusions: PSA screening may account for much, but not all, of the observed drop in prostate cancer mortality. Other factors, such as changing treatment practices, may also have played a role in improving prostate cancer outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Projected prostate cancer mortality for men aged 50 and older under the University of Michigan (UMICH) model (Panel A) and under the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) model (Panel B)

References

    1. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:215–224. - PubMed
    1. Albertsen PC. What is the value of screening for prostate cancer in the US? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2:536–537. - PubMed
    1. Martin RM, Smith GD, Donovan J. Does current evidence justify prostate cancer screening in Europe? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2:538–539. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ. Revisiting my personal decision about prostate-specific antigen testing in 2005. BJU Int. 2005;96:954–956. - PubMed
    1. Concato J, Wells CK, Horwitz RI, et al. The effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer: a nested case–control study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:38–43. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances