A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival

被引:109
作者
Parker, C.
Muston, D.
Melia, J.
Moss, S.
Dearnaley, D.
机构
[1] Inst Canc Res, Acad Unit Radiotherapy & Oncol, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
[2] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
[3] Canc Res Inst, Canc Screening Evaluat Unit, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
prostate cancer; model; outcomes;
D O I
10.1038/sj.bjc.6603105
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The lead time and overdetection associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, and generational improvements in all-cause mortality, make prostate cancer outcome studies from the pre-PSA era difficult to interpret in a contemporary setting. We developed a competing-risks hazard model to estimate the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the impact of radical treatment on overall survival. The model of hazard of mortality was fitted to clinical outcome data from the pre-PSA era, and the effects of screening, generational mortality improvements and radical treatment were incorporated. Sensitivities to the choice of baseline data and values of key parameters were assessed. Lead-time estimates in men diagnosed aged 55-59 years were 14.1, 9.3 and 5.0 years for men with Gleason scores < 7, 7 and > 7, respectively, assuming biennial screening with 100% attendance. Central estimates of 15-year prostate cancer mortality for conservative management of screen-detected prostate cancer ranged from 0 to 2% for Gleason scores < 7, 9 to 31% for Gleason score 7 and 28-72% for Gleason scores > 7. For men aged 55-59 years at diagnosis, the predicted absolute 15-year survival benefit from curative treatment was 0, 12 and 26% for men with Gleason scores < 7, 7 and > 7, respectively. Estimates of the survival benefit of radical treatment were relatively insensitive to values of key parameters. The case for curative treatment, rather than conservative management, of screen-detected localised prostate cancer is strongest in men with high-grade disease. This conclusion contrasts with current patterns of care.
引用
收藏
页码:1361 / 1368
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
Albertsen, PC ;
Hanley, JA ;
Fine, J .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 293 (17) :2095-2101
[2]   Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
Albertsen, PC ;
Hanley, JA ;
Gleason, DF ;
Barry, MJ .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (11) :975-980
[3]   Competing risks as a multi-state model [J].
Andersen, PK ;
Abildstrom, SZ ;
Rosthoj, S .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2002, 11 (02) :203-215
[4]  
Barry MJ, 2001, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V91, P2302, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2302::AID-CNCR1262>3.3.CO
[5]  
2-G
[6]   Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer [J].
Bill-Axelson, A ;
Holmberg, L ;
Ruutu, M ;
Häggman, M ;
Andersson, SO ;
Bratell, S ;
Spångberg, A ;
Busch, C ;
Nordling, S ;
Garmo, H ;
Palmgren, J ;
Adami, HO ;
Norlén, BJ ;
Johansson, JE .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 352 (19) :1977-1984
[7]   National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer [J].
Cooperberg, MR ;
Grossfeld, GD ;
Lubeck, DP ;
Carroll, PR .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2003, 95 (13) :981-989
[8]   The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: Trends in clinical presentation and primary management [J].
Cooperberg, MR ;
Lubeck, DP ;
Meni, MV ;
Mehta, SS ;
Carroll, PR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2004, 22 (11) :2141-2149
[9]  
Donovan J, 2003, Health Technol Assess, V7, P1
[10]   Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening:: Estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer [J].
Draisma, G ;
Boer, R ;
Otto, SJ ;
van der Cruijsen, IW ;
Damhuis, RAM ;
Schröder, FH ;
de Koning, HJ .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2003, 95 (12) :868-878