1730 WHAT IS THE TRUE NUMBER-NEEDED-TO-SCREEN AND TREAT TO SAVE A LIFE WITH PSA SCREENING? (2010)

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection and Screening I1 Apr 20101730 WHAT IS THE TRUE NUMBER-NEEDED-TO-SCREEN AND TREAT TO SAVE A LIFE WITH PSA SCREENING? Stacy Loeb, Edward F. Vonesh, E. Jeffrey Metter, H. Ballentine Carter, Peter H. Gann, and William J. Catalona Stacy LoebStacy Loeb Baltimore, MD More articles by this author , Edward F. VoneshEdward F. Vonesh Chicago, IL More articles by this author , E. Jeffrey MetterE. Jeffrey Metter Baltimore, MD More articles by this author , H. Ballentine CarterH. Ballentine Carter Baltimore, MD More articles by this author , Peter H. GannPeter H. Gann Chicago, IL More articles by this author , and William J. CatalonaWilliam J. Catalona Chicago, IL More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.1578AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 20% mortality reduction (hazard ratio, HR of 0.80) with PSA screening (NEJM 2009; 360: 1320), which increased to 31% when corrected for noncompliance in the screening arm and contamination in the control arm (Eur Urol 2009; 56:584). Based on the intent-to-treat analysis, they estimated a number-needed-to-screen (NNS) of 1410 and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 48 to prevent 1 prostate cancer death at a median follow-up time of 9 years (just when the cumulative hazard functions began to diverge). Although NNS and NNT are useful statistics to assess the benefits and harms of an intervention, there are numerous pitfalls in their calculation and interpretation. The objective of our study was to re-examine the effect of varying follow-up times on the NNS and NNT using simulated data extrapolated from the ERSPC report. METHODS Based on previously reported data from the ERSPC, we modeled the cumulative hazard function using a piecewise exponential model. We assumed a constant hazard of 0.0002 for both the screening and control groups for years 1-7 of the trial; whereas, we assumed different constant rates of 0.00062 and 0.00102 for the screening and control groups for years 8 to 12, respectively. Based on this non-proportional hazards assumption, we computed patient survival and cumulative hazard ratios (CHR) over time as a function of the cumulative hazard function. Annualized cancer detection and drop-out rates were also approximated based upon the observed number of individuals at risk in published ERSPC data. RESULTS Figure 1 compares the simulated cumulative hazard functions to published data from the ERSPC. According to our model, the NNS and NNT at 9 years were 1254 and 43, respectively. This corresponds to a CHR of 0.77 similar to the crude HR of 0.80 from the ERSPC report. Subsequently, the NNS decreased from 837 at year 10 to 503 at year 12, and the NNT decreased from 29 to 18. CONCLUSIONS Despite the seemingly simplistic nature of estimating NNT, there is widespread misunderstanding of its pitfalls among the urological community, the media, and the general public. With additional follow-up in the ERSPC, if the mortality difference continues to grow, this will lead to a decrease in the NNT. © 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByShteynshlyuger A and Andriole G (2018) Cost-Effectiveness of Prostate Specific Antigen Screening in the United States: Extrapolating From the European Study of Screening for Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 3, (828-832), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011. Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e668-e669 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Stacy Loeb Baltimore, MD More articles by this author Edward F. Vonesh Chicago, IL More articles by this author E. Jeffrey Metter Baltimore, MD More articles by this author H. Ballentine Carter Baltimore, MD More articles by this author Peter H. Gann Chicago, IL More articles by this author William J. Catalona Chicago, IL More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...