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
. 2020 Oct 1;112(10):1013-1020.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa001.

Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer

Affiliations

Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer

Eveline A M Heijnsdijk et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Erratum in

  • Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Jun 1;112(6):655. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa033. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020. PMID: 32324862 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Studies conducted in Swedish populations have shown that men with lowest prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at ages 44-50 years and 60 years have very low risk of future distant metastasis or death from prostate cancer. This study investigates benefits and harms of screening strategies stratified by PSA levels.

Methods: PSA levels and diagnosis patterns from two microsimulation models of prostate cancer progression, detection, and mortality were compared against results of the Malmö Preventive Project, which stored serum and tracked subsequent prostate cancer diagnoses for 25 years. The models predicted the harms (tests and overdiagnoses) and benefits (lives saved and life-years gained) of PSA-stratified screening strategies compared with biennial screening from age 45 years to age 69 years.

Results: Compared with biennial screening for ages 45-69 years, lengthening screening intervals for men with PSA less than 1.0 ng/mL at age 45 years led to 46.8-47.0% fewer tests (range between models), 0.9-2.1% fewer overdiagnoses, and 3.1-3.8% fewer lives saved. Stopping screening when PSA was less than 1.0 ng/mL at age 60 years and older led to 12.8-16.0% fewer tests, 5.0-24.0% fewer overdiagnoses, and 5.0-13.1% fewer lives saved. Differences in model results can be partially explained by differences in assumptions about the link between PSA growth and the risk of disease progression.

Conclusion: Relative to a biennial screening strategy, PSA-stratified screening strategies investigated in this study substantially reduced the testing burden and modestly reduced overdiagnosis while preserving most lives saved. Further research is needed to clarify the link between PSA growth and disease progression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The structures of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) model and the Erasmus University Medical Center-MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (Erasmus-MISCAN) model. PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Observed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) distributions and predicted 25-year risk of diagnosis based on empirical data from the Malmö Preventive Project (N = 10 357) and corresponding model projections in the absence of screening for men ages 44–50 years. Both empirical and model projections are derived from logistic regression models for event of disease diagnosis over 25 years in either the empirical or the modeled data. Erasmus-MISCAN = Erasmus University Medical Center-MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis; FHCRC = Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Observed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) distributions and predicted 25-year risk of diagnosis based on empirical data from the Malmö Preventive Project (N = 1162) and corresponding model projections in the absence of screening for men aged 60 years. Both empirical and model projections are derived from logistic regression models for event of disease diagnosis over 25 years in either the empirical or the modeled data. Erasmus-MISCAN = Erasmus University Medical Center-MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis; FHCRC = Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Comment in

References

    1. de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ.. Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(7):1600–1607. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gulati R, Gore JL, Etzioni R.. Comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA-based prostate cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):145–153. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heijnsdijk EA, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):366. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carlsson S, Assel M, Sjoberg D, et al. Influence of blood prostate specific antigen levels at age 60 on benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g2296. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gelfond J, Choate K, Ankerst DP, Hernandez J, Leach RJ, Thompson IM Jr.. Intermediate-term risk of prostate cancer is directly related to baseline prostate specific antigen: implications for reducing the burden of prostate specific antigen screening. J Urol. 2015;194(1):46–51. - PubMed

Publication types