Cargando…
Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overdiagnosis in Australia: quantifying the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach. DESIGN: Modelling and validation of the lifetime risk method using publicly available population data. SETTING: Opportunistic screening for prostate cancer i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30858156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022457 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: To quantify the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach. DESIGN: Modelling and validation of the lifetime risk method using publicly available population data. SETTING: Opportunistic screening for prostate cancer in the Australian population. PARTICIPANTS: Australian male population (1982–2012). INTERVENTIONS: Prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: lifetime risk of overdiagnosis in 2012 (excess lifetime cancer risk adjusted for changing competing mortality); Secondary: lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis (unadjusted and adjusted for competing mortality); Excess lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis (for all years subsequent to 1982). RESULTS: The lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer increased from 6.1% in 1982 (1 in 17) to 19.6% in 2012 (1 in 5). Using 2012 competing mortality rates, the lifetime risk in 1982 was 11.5% (95% CI 11.0% to 12.0%). The excess lifetime risk of prostate cancer in 2012 (adjusted for changing competing mortality) was 8.2% (95% CI 7.6% to 8.7%) (1 in 13). This corresponds to 41% of prostate cancers being overdiagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimated rate of overdiagnosis is in agreement with estimates using other methods. This method may be used without the need to adjust for lead times. If annual (cross-sectional) data are used, then it may give valid estimates of overdiagnosis once screening has been established long enough for the benefits from the early detection of non-overdiagnosed cancer at a younger age to be realised in older age groups. |
---|