Table 1.

A selection of studies of overdiagnosis due to prostate cancer screening, labeled according to the measure of overdiagnosis, the study design and context, and the estimation approach used. Studies were selected to reflect a range of choices of overdiagnosis measures, contexts and methods and to include recent, high-profile publications

Author	Years of study	Estimate	Measure	Approach	Context
Etzioni, 2002 (18)	1988– 1999	29% in whites, 44% in blacks	Cases overdiagnosed/screen-detected cases	Lead-time	US SEER9 Age 60–84 Population study
Draisma, 2003 (13)	1994– 2000	48%	Cases overdiagnosed/detected cases	Lead-time	ERSPC Rotterdam Age 55–67 Screened every 4 years PSA cutoff: 3.0 μg/L Clinical trial
Telesca, 2008 (6)	1973– 2000	23% in whites, 34% in blacks	Cases overdiagnosed/screen-detected cases	Lead-time	US SEER9 Age 50–84 Population study
Draisma, 2009 (23)	1985– 2000	23%, 28%, 42% 9%, 12%, 19%	Cases overdiagnosed/screen-detected cases Cases overdiagnosed/all detected cases	Lead-time	US SEER9 Age 50–84 Population study
Wu, 2012 (34)	1996– 2005	3.4 %	Cases overdiagnosed/Screenees	Lead-time	ERSPC Finland Age 55–67 Screened every 4 years PSA cutoff 4.0 μg/L RCT
Welch, 2009 (32)	1986– 2005	1.3 million	Excess cases	Excess incidence*	US SEER9 Age 20+ Population study
Schröder, 2009 (20)	1991– 2006	48	Excess cases/lives saved	Excess incidence*	ERSPC Age 55–69 Screened every 2 or 4 years Clinical trial
Pashayan, 2006 (7)	1996– 2002	40–64%	Cases overdiagnosed/cases detected by PSA test	Excess incidence*	Cambridge, UK PSA used as diagnostic test, not for routine screening Population study
Zappa, 1998 (35)	1992– 1995	51%	Excess cases/cases in absence of screening	Excess incidence*	Florence, Italy Age 60 at entry 6 biennial screens Population study

PSA = prostate-specific antigen; SEER9 = core 9 catchment areas of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; ERSPC = European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

^*Includes early years of screening use