Show simple item record

The prostate cancer conundrum revisited

dc.contributor.authorEtzioni, Ruthen_US
dc.contributor.authorGulati, Romanen_US
dc.contributor.authorTsodikov, Alexen_US
dc.contributor.authorWever, Elisabeth M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPenson, David F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHeijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKatcher, Jeffreyen_US
dc.contributor.authorDraisma, Gerriten_US
dc.contributor.authorFeuer, Eric J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorde Koning, Harry J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMariotto, Angela B.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-11T17:37:22Z
dc.date.available2014-02-03T16:21:44Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-12-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationEtzioni, Ruth; Gulati, Roman; Tsodikov, Alex; Wever, Elisabeth M.; Penson, David F.; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.; Katcher, Jeffrey; Draisma, Gerrit; Feuer, Eric J.; de Koning, Harry J.; Mariotto, Angela B. (2012). "The prostate cancer conundrum revisited ." Cancer 118(23): 5955-5963. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94469>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94469
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States declined by >40% between 1991 and 2005. The impact of changes in primary treatment and adjuvant and neoadjuvant hormone therapy on this decline is unknown. METHODS: The authors applied 3 independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history and disease detection under common assumptions about treatment patterns, treatment efficacy, and survival in the population. Primary treatment patterns were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry; data on the frequency of hormone therapy were obtained from the CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) database; and treatment efficacy was based on estimates from randomized trials and comparative effectiveness studies of treatment alternatives. The models projected prostate cancer mortality without prostate‐specific antigen screening and in the presence and absence of treatment benefit. The impact of primary treatment was expressed as a fraction of the difference between observed mortality and projected mortality in the absence of treatment benefit. RESULTS: The 3 models projected that changes in treatment explained 22% to 33% of the mortality decline by 2005. These contributions were accounted for mostly by surgery and radiation therapy, which increased in frequency until the 1990s, whereas hormone therapies contributed little to the mortality decline by 2005. Assuming that treatment benefit was less for older men, changes in treatment explained only 16% to 23% of the mortality decline by 2005. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in primary treatment explained a minority of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality. The remainder of the decline probably was because of other interventions, such as prostate‐specific antigen screening and advances in the treatment of recurrent and progressive disease. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. Three models of prostate cancer natural history are combined with data on patterns of primary treatment, including hormone therapies and trial‐based estimates of treatment efficacy. The results indicate that changes in these treatments explain 22% to 33% of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality between 1991 and 2005.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherProstatic Neoplasmsen_US
dc.subject.otherSurveillanceen_US
dc.subject.otherProstatectomyen_US
dc.subject.otherMortalityen_US
dc.subject.otherComputer Simulationen_US
dc.subject.otherRadiotherapyen_US
dc.titleThe prostate cancer conundrum revisiteden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlandsen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennesseeen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother1100 Fairview Avenue N, M2‐B230, PO Box 19024, Seattle WA 98109‐1024en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washingtonen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22605665en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94469/1/27594_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.27594en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. Urology. 1996; 48: 773 ‐ 777.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlbertsen PC. The prostate cancer conundrum. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 930 ‐ 931.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBill‐Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 1708 ‐ 1717.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooperberg MR, Grossfeld GD, Lubeck DP, Carroll PR. National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 981 ‐ 989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX, et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—part I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91: 1017 ‐ 1024.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate‐cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1320 ‐ 1328.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate‐cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1310 ‐ 1319.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePinsky PF, Black A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trials. 2010; 7: 303 ‐ 311.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerg CD. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: the prostate cancer screening results in context. Acta Oncol. 2011; 50 ( suppl 1 ): 12 ‐ 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 529 ‐ 534.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMariotto A, Etzioni R, Krapcho M, Feuer EJ. Reconstructing prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing patterns among black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2007; 109: 1877 ‐ 1886.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePinsky PF, Crawford ED, Kramer BS, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 775 ‐ 779.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrubb RL 3rd, Pinsky PF, Greenlee RT, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial 4 rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int. 2008; 102: 1524 ‐ 1530.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEtzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19: 175 ‐ 181.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGulati R, Inoue L, Katcher J, Hazelton W, Etzioni R. Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control. Biostatistics. 2010; 11: 707 ‐ 719.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDraisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate‐specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 868 ‐ 878.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDraisma G, Postma R, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ. Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119: 2366 ‐ 2371.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWever EM, Draisma G, Heijnsdijk EA, et al. Prostate‐specific antigen screening in the United States vs in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer‐Rotterdam. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 352 ‐ 355.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTsodikov A, Szabo A, Wegelin J. A population model of prostate cancer incidence. Stat Med. 2006; 25: 2846 ‐ 2866.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChefo S, Tsodikov A. Stage‐specific cancer incidence: an artificially mixed multinomial logit model. Stat Med. 2009; 28: 2054 ‐ 2076.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCetin K, Beebe‐Dimmer JL, Fryzek JP, Markus R, Carducci MA. Recent time trends in the epidemiology of stage IV prostate cancer in the United States: analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Urology. 2010; 75: 1396 ‐ 1404.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBannuru RR, Dvorak T, Obadan N, et al. Comparative evaluation of radiation treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 171 ‐ 178.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk‐adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen‐deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010; 116: 5226 ‐ 5234.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Viterbo R, et al. Long‐term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external‐beam radiotherapy for patients with high‐risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117: 2883 ‐ 2891.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long‐term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial. Lancet. 2002; 360: 103 ‐ 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD'Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ. Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 125 ‐ 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDenham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS, et al. Short‐term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the Trans‐Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6: 841 ‐ 850.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 435 ‐ 448.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJagsi R, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Katz SJ. Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data. Cancer. 2012; 118: 333 ‐ 341.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1591 ‐ 1597.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTrock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer‐specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2008; 299: 2760 ‐ 2769.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHadley J, Yabroff KR, Barrett MJ, Penson DF, Saigal CS, Potosky AL. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: evaluating statistical adjustments for confounding in observational data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 1780 ‐ 1793.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.