Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 964

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer

Open access
Loeb, Stacy, Bjurlin, Marc A., Nicholson, Joseph, Tammela, Teuvo L., Penson, David F., Carter, H. Ballentine, Carroll, Peter, Etzioni, Ruth·2014·European Urology
DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. Objective To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Evidence acquisition Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. Evidence synthesis The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7–46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5–38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. Conclusions Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. Patient summary Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Boniol, 2012, Critical role of prostate biopsy mortality in the number of years of life gained and lost within a prostate cancer screening programme, BJU Int, 110, 1648, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11513.x · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2012.11513.x
  2. Hartzband, 2012, There is more to life than death, N Engl J Med, 367, 987, 10.1056/NEJMp1207052 · doi:10.1056/nejmp1207052
  3. Savage, 2010, Empirical estimates of the lead time distribution for prostate cancer based on two independent representative cohorts of men not subject to prostate-specific antigen screening, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 19, 1201, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1251 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-09-1251
  4. Auvinen, 2002, Lead-time in prostate cancer screening (Finland), Cancer Causes Control, 13, 279, 10.1023/A:1015040231402 · doi:10.1023/a:1015040231402
  5. Finne, 2010, Lead-time in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Eur J Cancer, 46, 3102, 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.034 · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.034
  6. Mariotto, 2007, 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, 109, 1877, 10.1002/cncr.22607 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22607
  7. Gulati, 2011, Long-term projections of the harm-benefit trade-off in prostate cancer screening are more favorable than previous short-term estimates, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 1412, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011 · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.011
  8. Gulati, 2013, Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms, Ann Intern Med, 158, 145, 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003 · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00003
  9. Davidov, 2004, Overdiagnosis in early detection programs, Biostatistics, 5, 603, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxh012 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxh012
  10. Roobol, 2013, Screening for prostate cancer: results of the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Eur Urol, 64, 530, 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.030 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.030
  11. Pinsky, 2005, Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial, J Urol, 173, 746, 10.1097/01.ju.0000152697.25708.71 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000152697.25708.71
  12. Wever, 2013, Treatment of local-regional prostate cancer detected by PSA screening: benefits and harms according to prognostic factors, Br J Cancer, 108, 1971, 10.1038/bjc.2013.198 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.198
  13. Cooperberg, 2004, The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management, J Clin Oncol, 22, 2141, 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.062 · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.10.062
  14. Dall’era, 2009, Sociodemographic predictors of prostate cancer risk category at diagnosis: unique patterns of significant and insignificant disease, J Urol, 181, 1622, 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.123 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.123
  15. Shao, 2010, Risk profiles and treatment patterns among men diagnosed as having prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen level below 4.0 ng/ml, Arch Intern Med, 170, 1256, 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.221 · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.221
  16. Mishra, 2013, Patterns of care for elderly men diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2008: a population-based analysis, Am J Clin Oncol, 36, 606, 10.1097/COC.0b013e318261056c · doi:10.1097/coc.0b013e318261056c
  17. Kim, 2013, Many young men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screen-detected prostate cancers may be candidates for active surveillance, BJU Int, 111, 934, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11768.x · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2012.11768.x
  18. Sengupta, 2013, Are we over-diagnosing and over-treating prostate cancer?, BJU Int, 111, 98
  19. Corcoran, 2010, Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer, Urology, 76, 703, 10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.071 · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.071
  20. McGregor, 1998, Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection, CMAJ, 159, 1368
  21. Graif, 2007, Under diagnosis and over diagnosis of prostate cancer, J Urol, 178, 88, 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.017 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.017
  22. Noldus, 2000, Stage migration in clinically localized prostate cancer, Eur Urol, 38, 74, 10.1159/000020255 · doi:10.1159/000020255
  23. Kilpelainen, 2010, Results of the three rounds of the Finnish Prostate Cancer Screening Trial—the incidence of advanced cancer is decreased by screening, Int J Cancer, 127, 1699, 10.1002/ijc.25368 · doi:10.1002/ijc.25368
  24. Pelzer, 2008, Over-diagnosis and under-diagnosis of screen- vs non-screen-detected prostate cancers with in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 2.0-10.0 ng/mL, BJU Int, 101, 1223, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07367.x · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07367.x
  25. Pelzer, 2008, Clinical and pathological features of screen vs non-screen-detected prostate cancers: is there a difference?, BJU Int, 102, 24, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07566.x · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.07566.x
  26. Postma, 2007, Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)—Section Rotterdam: a comparison of two rounds of screening, Eur Urol, 52, 89, 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.030 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.030
  27. Park, 2013, Detection rate of clinically insignificant prostate cancer increases with repeat prostate biopsies, Asian J Androl, 15, 236, 10.1038/aja.2012.123 · doi:10.1038/aja.2012.123
  28. Resnick, 2011, Repeat prostate biopsy and the incremental risk of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, Urology, 77, 548, 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.063 · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.063
  29. Brausi, 2004, Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment?, J Urol, 172, 906, 10.1097/01.ju.0000134622.54235.93 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000134622.54235.93
  30. Miller, 2009, Prostate cancer severity among low income, uninsured men, J Urol, 181, 579, 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.010 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.010
  31. Haas, 2007, Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence, J Natl Cancer Inst, 99, 1484, 10.1093/jnci/djm153 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djm153
  32. Stamatiou, 2006, Frequency of impalpable prostate adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions in Greek male population: an autopsy study, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 9, 45, 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500847 · doi:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500847
  33. Chun, 2008, Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men, Cancer, 113, 701, 10.1002/cncr.23610 · doi:10.1002/cncr.23610
  34. Loeb, 2012, Prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) risk count improves the specificity of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer, BJU Int, 109, 508, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10900.x · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10900.x
  35. Chang, 2005, Genome-wide screen for prostate cancer susceptibility genes in men with clinically significant disease, Prostate, 64, 356, 10.1002/pros.20249 · doi:10.1002/pros.20249

Cited by

See all 964

Metadata

Authors
Loeb, S., Bjurlin, M. A., Nicholson, J., Tammela, T. L., Penson, D. F., Carter, H. B., Carroll, P., & Etzioni, R.
Venue
European Urology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
65
Issue
6
Pages
1046-1055
ISSN
0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
OpenAlex
W1989403098
Cited by
964
References
33
FWCI
59.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
The paper
Loeb, S., Bjurlin, M. A., Nicholson, J., Tammela, T. L., Penson, D. F., Carter, H. B., Carroll, P., & Etzioni, R. (2014). Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.