Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Open, 3(9), p. e022457, 2019

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022457

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

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

Journal article published in 2019 by Thanya Pathirana ORCID, Andrew Hayen, Jenny Doust, Paul Glasziou, Katy Bell ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ObjectivesTo quantify the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach.DesignModelling and validation of the lifetime risk method using publicly available population data.SettingOpportunistic screening for prostate cancer in the Australian population.ParticipantsAustralian male population (1982–2012).InterventionsProstate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary: 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsOur 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.