Impact of United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Utilization of Prostate-specific Antigen Screening in Medicare Beneficiaries

Impact on prostate cancer clinical presentation after non-screening policies at a tertiary-care medical center- a retrospective study

Background

In May 2012 the US Preventive Task Force issued a ‘D’ recommendation against routine PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer. This recommendation was implemented progressively in our health system. The aim of this study is to define its impact on prostate cancer staging at a tertiary care institution.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed from 2012 until 2015 at a single center. We analyzed the total number of biopsies performed per year and the positive biopsy rate. For those patients with positive biopsies we recorded diagnostic PSA, clinical stage, ISUP grade group, nodal involvement and metastatic status at diagnosis.

Results

A total of 1686 biopsies were analyzed. The positive biopsy rate increased from 25% in 2012 to 40% in 2015 (p < 0.05). No change in median PSA was noticed (p = 0.627). The biopsies detected higher ISUP grades (p = 0.000). In addition, newly diagnosed prostate cancer presented a higher clinical stage (p = 0.005), higher metastatic rates (p = 0.03) and a tendency to higher lymph node involvement although not statistically significant (p = 0.09).

Conclusion

After the 2012 recommendation, patients presented a higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis, with a more adverse ISUP group, clinical stage and metastatic disease.

These results should be taken into consideration to implement a risk adapted strategy for prostate cancer screening.

Trends for Stage and Grade Group of Prostate Cancer in the US (2010-2016)

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the yearly prostate cancer incidence per 100,000 men, comparing consecutive years from 2010 through 2016. In the years immediately following the 2011/2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force update to prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines, PSA screening, biopsy, and subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis and definitive local treatment have declined. We performed an analysis of stage and grade at diagnosis for prostate cancer in the US, in the years following the 2011/2012 update.

METHODS/MATERIALS

This was a retrospective study performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. Inclusion criteria were men ≥ 40 years with prostate cancer diagnosed between the years 2010 and 2016.

RESULTS

In total, 370,865 cases of prostate cancer were analyzed. Overall, the incidence of prostate cancer decreased from 522 to 327 cases per 100,000 persons from 2010 to 2016. Conversely, the rate of metastatic disease increased over this duration from 29 to 37 cases per 100,000 persons (P< .05). In patients ≥70 years, this increase was from 21 to 27 cases per 100,000 persons over the 7 years (P < .05). High-grade disease incidence did not change significantly over the study period, though low-grade disease incidence, (Grade Groups 1 and 2) decreased from 204 and 155 to 116 and 115 cases per 100,000 persons, respectively (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the years following the 2011/2012 recommendation against PSA screening, fewer localized prostate cancers and more distantly metastatic prostate cancers were diagnosed. Most increases in metastatic disease was among men ≥70 years.

Implications of the United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Stage Migration

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen screening is controversial. In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against screening men aged ≥ 75 years, and in 2012, expanded this to include all men. The impact of these changes continues to unfold. We hypothesized that these screening changes could delay the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify men (age, 55-69 years) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004 to 2008 (group 1), 2009 to 2012 (group 2), and 2013 to 2015 (group 3). Groups reflect United States Preventive Services Task Force guideline changes. Descriptive statistics were used to present baseline statistics and the number of patients diagnosed in aforementioned groups. Data was adjusted for population growth.

RESULTS

A total of 328,586 men were identified (group 1, 135,625; group 2, 117,979; group 3, 74,982). The average number of men diagnosed annually with N1M0 (group 1, 381; group 2, 477; group 3, 660) and M1 (group 1, 523; group 2, 761; group 3, 1037) disease increased. With group 1 as control, there was a decrease in the incidence of localized disease (group 2, 9.2%; group 3, 33.2%). However, the incidence of N1M0 (group 2, 5.3%; group 3, 30.1%) and M1 disease (group 2, 22.6%; group 3, 49.2%) increased. Separate analyses of patients (age 50-75 years) and African Americans showed similar trends.

CONCLUSION

With each recommendation, there was increased incidence of de novo metastatic prostate cancer. The sequelae of advanced disease include financial, emotional, and physical burden. Future studies are needed to identify screening strategies that reduce the risk of developing metastatic disease without over-diagnosing indolent cancers.

Patient preferences for reducing bowel adverse events following prostate radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The Extended Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument is a commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer clinical trials. Summary scores for EPIC subscales are calculated by averaging patient scores for attributes (e.g., side effects), implying equal weighting of the attributes in the absence of evidence showing otherwise.

METHODS

We estimated patient preferences for each of the attributes included in the bowel subscale of the EPIC instrument using best-worst (B-W) scaling among a cohort of men with prostate cancer. Patients were presented with multiple tasks in which they were asked to indicate which attribute they would find most and least bothersome at different levels of severity. Analysis utilized both (simple) B-W counts and scores to estimate patient preferences for each attribute as well as attribute levels.

RESULTS

A total of 174 respondents from two institutions participated in the survey. Preference estimates for each of the five attributes included in the EPIC-26 bowel subscale showed wide variation preferences: 'losing control of bowel movements' was found to be the most bothersome attribute, with a B-W score of -0.48, followed by bowel urgency which also had negative B-W score (-0.04). Increased frequency of bowel movements was the least bothersome attribute, with a B-W score of +0.33, followed by bloody stools (+0.12), and pelvic/rectal pain (+0.06). Analysis of preference weights for attribute bother levels showed preference estimates be linear.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide novel evidence on patient preferences for side effect reduction following prostate radiotherapy. Within the bowel sub-scale of the EPIC-26 short form, we found that bowel incontinence was perceived to be the most bothersome treatment effect, while increased bowel frequency was least bothersome to patients.

Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a national incidence estimate using the “Big Three”

Background

Missed vascular events, infections, and cancers account for ~75% of serious harms from diagnostic errors. Just 15 diseases from these “Big Three” categories account for nearly half of all serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims. As part of a larger project estimating total US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms, we performed a focused literature review to measure diagnostic error and harm rates for these 15 conditions.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Google, and cited references. For errors, we selected high-quality, modern, US-based studies, if available, and best available evidence otherwise. For harms, we used literature-based estimates of the generic (disease-agnostic) rate of serious harms (morbidity/mortality) per diagnostic error and applied claims-based severity weights to construct disease-specific rates. Results were validated via expert review and comparison to prior literature that used different methods. We used Monte Carlo analysis to construct probabilistic plausible ranges (PPRs) around estimates.

Results

Rates for the 15 diseases were drawn from 28 published studies representing 91,755 patients. Diagnostic error (false negative) rates ranged from 2.2% (myocardial infarction) to 62.1% (spinal abscess), with a median of 13.6% [interquartile range (IQR) 9.2–24.7] and an aggregate mean of 9.7% (PPR 8.2–12.3). Serious misdiagnosis-related harm rates per incident disease case ranged from 1.2% (myocardial infarction) to 35.6% (spinal abscess), with a median of 5.5% (IQR 4.6–13.6) and an aggregate mean of 5.2% (PPR 4.5–6.7). Rates were considered face valid by domain experts and consistent with prior literature reports.

Conclusions

Diagnostic improvement initiatives should focus on dangerous conditions with higher diagnostic error and misdiagnosis-related harm rates.