The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lead Times and Overdetection Due to Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Estimates From the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Screening for prostate cancer advances the time of diagnosis (lead time) and detects cancers that would not have been diagnosed in the absence of screening (overdetection). Both consequences have considerable impact on the net benefits of screening. METHODS: We developed simulation models based on results of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which enrolled 42,376 men and in which 1498 cases of prostate cancer were identified, and on baseline prostate cancer incidence and stage distribution data. The models were used to predict mean lead times, overdetection rates, and ranges (corresponding to approximate 95% confidence intervals) associated with different screening programs. RESULTS: Mean lead times and rates of overdetection depended on a man's age at screening. For a single screening test at age 55, the estimated mean lead time was 12.3 years (range = 11.6-14.1 years) and the overdetection rate was 27% (range = 24%-37%); at age 75, the estimates were 6.0 years (range = 5.8-6.3 years) and 56% (range = 53%-61%), respectively. For a screening program with a 4-year screening interval from age 55 to 67, the estimated mean lead time was 11.2 years (range = 10.8-12.1 years), and the overdetection rate was 48% (range = 44%-55%). This screening program raised the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis from 6.4% to 10.6%, a relative increase of 65% (range = 56%-87%). In annual screening from age 55 to 67, the estimated overdetection rate was 50% (range = 46%-57%) and the lifetime prostate cancer risk was increased by 80% (range = 69%-116%). Extending annual or quadrennial screening to the age of 75 would result in at least two cases of overdetection for every clinically relevant cancer detected. CONCLUSIONS: These model-based lead-time estimates support a prostate cancer screening interval of more than 1 year.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer
Loeb, S., Bjurlin, M. A., Nicholson, J., Tammela, T. L., Penson, D. F., Carter, H. B., Carroll, P., & Etzioni, R. (2014) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 · Cited by 964
Fenton, J. J., Weyrich, M. S., Durbin, S., Liu, Y., Bang, H., & Melnikow, J. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3712 · Cited by 555
International epidemiology of prostate cancer: Geographical distribution and secular trends
Baade, P. D., Youlden, D. R., & Krnjacki, L. J. (2009) · Molecular Nutrition & Food Research · doi:10.1002/mnfr.200700511 · Cited by 444
Victorson, D., Hankin, V., Burns, J., Weiland, R., Maletich, C., Sufrin, N., Schuette, S., Gutierrez, B., & Brendler, C. (2017) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.4135 · Cited by 56
de Salis, I., Tomlin, Z., Toerien, M., & Donovan, J. (2008) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008028 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Draisma, G., Boer, R., Otto, S. J., van der Cruijsen, I. W., Damhuis, R. A. M., Schroder, F. H., & de Koning, H. J.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-06-18
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 868-878
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2121103668
- Cited by
- 1,071
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Lead Times and Overdetection Due to Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Estimates From the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/95.12.868
- The paper
- Draisma, G., Boer, R., Otto, S. J., van der Cruijsen, I. W., Damhuis, R. A. M., Schroder, F. H., & de Koning, H. J. (2003). Lead Times and Overdetection Due to Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Estimates From the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.12.868
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.
