Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 23;17(11):e0277784. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277784

Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy

Andri Wilberg Orrason 1,*, Marcus Westerberg 2, Peter Albertsen 3, Johan Styrke 4, David Robinson 5, Hans Garmo 1, Pär Stattin 1
Editor: Donovan Anthony McGrowder6
PMCID: PMC9683621  PMID: 36417412

Abstract

The main aim of the study was to determine the impact of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis. We used a state transition simulation model based on Swedish population-based data to simulate life trajectories for 2,000,000 men from age 40 to 100 in order to estimate the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Risk estimates were determined by the level of diagnostic activity and estimated life expectancy. Higher exposure to diagnostic activity resulted in more prostate cancer diagnoses. This was especially true for men diagnosed with low or intermediate grade disease. Men exposed to high diagnostic compared to low diagnostic activity had a five-fold increased lifetime risk (22% vs. 5%) of being diagnosed with a low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer and half the risk of being diagnosed with a high-risk prostate cancer (6% vs. 13%). Men with a long life expectancy had a higher lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis both overall (21% vs. 15%) and in all risk categories when compared to men with a short life expectancy. The lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly influenced by diagnostic activity and to a lesser degree by life expectancy.

Introduction

One in every 6 to 8 men in Western countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, is diagnosed with prostate cancer [1–3]. This lifetime risk estimate, however, depends upon several factors including the intensity of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing of asymptomatic men, the availability of urologic health care including access to magnetic resonance tomography (MRT), ultrasound examinations and prostate biopsies and the number of cores obtained at biopsy. Life expectancy including chronic exposure to environmental risk factors also impacts the incidence of a prostate cancer diagnosis.

The incidence of prostate cancer increased dramatically in Sweden in the late 1990’s following the introduction of PSA testing. By the early 2000’s, despite national recommendations against PSA testing, almost half of all men age 50–70 years had undergone PSA testing [4–6]. During the same period, life expectancy for Swedish men increased from 76 to 80 years [7]. As a consequence, men born in the 1930’s have a lower lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to men born in the 1950’s.

We previously created the Proxy‐based Risk‐stratified Incidence Simulation Model–Prostate Cancer (PRISM‐PC), to simulate real-life scenarios of prostate cancer [8]. We have used this model to describe the interplay between age, incidence, mortality, and diagnostic activity without explicitly modelling the natural history of the disease.

The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis overall and by risk categories.

Materials and methods

Simulation model

We combined Swedish demographic data with data available in the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) on all men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1992 to 2016 and their prostate cancer-free comparator men, matched on birth year and region to construct a simulation model, PRISM-PC [8–10]. In brief, PCBaSe contains information on men diagnosed with prostate cancer and registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) that has been linked to a number of other national health care registers and demographic databases held by The National Board of Health and Welfare and Statistics Sweden [9]. We applied PRISM-PC to estimate the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis under three different levels of diagnostic activity and life expectancy. Our PRISM-PC model has been described in detail previously [8, 11]. For a hypothetical birth cohort, the model simulates life trajectories from age 40 to age 100 for each man in the cohort. At each year the model simulates who has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, remained prostate cancer-free, died from prostate cancer or died from other causes than prostate cancer, resulting in complete life histories. For clarity, our model included life spans with an upper limit of 100 years but not all men in the simulation lived to age 100. The model is based on a proxy for the unobserved diagnostic activity defined as the age and calendar year-specific incidence of low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in each of the 21 regions in Sweden. An age-period-cohort model was used to model the age-dependent life expectancy and trends, based on a sample of Swedish men without a prior prostate cancer diagnosis alive from 1992 to 2016 [8, 12, 13]. Model extrapolation was used to derive lifetime trends in life expectancy outside the time frame 1992–2016, so that life expectancy between ages 40–100 could be projected for men born from 1912 to 1992. Age limits were chosen since the risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is very rare outside these age limits. In the NPCR, 25 men less than 40 years and six men older than 100 years were registered with prostate cancer from 1992 to 2016.

To stratify the risk of disease progression at diagnosis, we modified the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Categorization previously used in PCBaSe [14]; 1) Low-risk: clinical stage T1-T2, Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ng/ml; 2) Intermediate-risk: T1-T2 and Gleason score 7 or PSA 10–19.9 ng/ml; 3) High-risk or locally advanced: T3, Gleason score 8 and above or PSA 20–49.9 ng/ml; 4) Regional: T4, N1 or PSA 50–499.9 ng/ml; 5) Distant metastases: M1 or PSA ≥ 500 ng/ml.

Study design

We simulated lifetime trajectories under different scenarios. Each scenario was defined by one of three levels of diagnostic activity; low as in Sweden 1992, intermediate as in Sweden 2016, and high as in Stockholm 2014 (a year when the Stockholm-3 study invited men to PSA testing [15]), and one of three levels of life expectancy; short for men born in 1912, intermediate for men born in 1952 and long for men born in 1992. In each scenario, 100 repeated simulations of lifetime trajectories of a cohort of 2,000,000 men were performed. Each simulation was summarized over the follow-up period to provide an estimate of the lifetime risk of prostate cancer by calculating the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer by risk category between age 40 and 100. The estimate at age 80, which is the current average life expectancy for men in Sweden, was extracted for tabulation [7]. The cumulative incidence of prostate cancer diagnosis in each risk category was defined as the proportion p = n/N of n diagnosed men with this risk category throughout the simulated follow-up, and the estimate of the variance used to construct confidence intervals was p(1-p)/N. Point and variance estimates extracted from each simulation were pooled across the 100 simulations for each scenario as previously described [8].

The Regional Ethical Review Board of Uppsala University approved the study (approval number 2016–239). Patient consent was collected by opt-out approach.

Results

Diagnostic activity

Men exposed to increasingly high diagnostic activity had an increased lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis overall; 18% (95% CI 17%-19%) for low activity, 21% (95% CI 20%-22%) for intermediate, and 29% (95% CI 25%-32%) for high diagnostic activity, applying long life expectancy in all scenarios (Table 1, Fig 1). Men exposed to high compared to low diagnostic activity had a five-fold higher lifetime risk of low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 22% (95% CI 19%-26%) vs. 5% (95% CI 4%-5%), and half the risk of high-risk or metastatic prostate cancer 13% (95% CI 13%-14%) vs. 6% (95% CI 5%-8%).

Table 1. Lifetime-risk of prostate cancer overall and per risk category according to intensity of diagnostic activity.

Low Sweden 1992 Intermediate Sweden 2016 High Stockholm 2014*
Risk category  100 y 95% CI 100 y 95% CI 100 y 95% CI
All 17.8 (16.9–18.8) 21.4 (20.4–22.3) 28.6 (25.1–32.2)
Low-risk 1.8 (1.5–2) 4.8 (4.4–5.2) 10.7 (7.6–13.7)
Intermediate-risk 2.8 (2.4–3.2) 7.5 (6.8–8.2) 11.6 (8.2–15.1)
High-risk 5.7 (5.2–6.2) 4.4 (4–4.8) 2.9 (2–3.8)
Regional metastases 2.8 (2.5–3.1) 1.7 (1.5–1.9) 1.4 (0.9–1.9)
Distant metastases 4.8 (4.4–5.1) 3 (2.7–3.3) 2.1 (1.4–2.7)
Low or intermediate-risk 4.5 (4–5.1) 12.3 (11.4–13.2) 22.3 (18.8–25.9)
High-risk or regional or distant metastases 13.3 (12.6–14) 9.1 (8.4–9.7) 6.3 (4.9–7.8)
Open in a new tab

Life expectancy is set to correspond to men born 1992.

*A year when the Stockholm-3 study invited men to measure their PSA [15].

Fig 1. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer diagnosis by risk category for a simulated follow-up of 2,000,000 men from age 40 to age 100 under three different levels of diagnostic activity: Low as in Sweden 1992; Intermediate as in Sweden 2016; High as in Stockholm 2014; when the Stockholm-3 study invited men to measure their PSA [15].

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Life expectancy

The lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis overall increased modestly with longer life expectancy increasing from 15% (95% CI 14%-16%) for short life expectancy, to 18% (95% CI 18%-19%) for intermediate, and to 21% (95% CI 20%-22%) for long life expectancy, applying the intermediate diagnostic activity in all scenarios (Table 2, Fig 2). Long compared to short life expectancy was associated with a higher lifetime risk of prostate cancer in each risk category; in particular for distant metastases, 3% (95% CI 3%-3%) vs. 1% (95% CI 1%-2%). For a reader-friendly representation of lifetime risk, we also present our results by use of pictograms (Figs 3 and 4).

Table 2. Lifetime-risk of prostate cancer overall and per category according to life expectancy for three birth cohorts.

Short Birth year 1912 Intermediate Birth year 1952 Long Birth year 1992
Risk category  100 y 95% CI 100 y 95% CI 100 y 95% CI
All 14.7 (13.9–15.5) 18.4 (17.6–19.3) 21.4 (20.4–22.3)
Low-risk 3.8 (3.5–4.2) 4.4 (4–4.8) 4.8 (4.4–5.2)
Intermediate-risk 5.7 (5.1–6.3) 6.8 (6.1–7.4) 7.5 (6.8–8.2)
High-risk 2.7 (2.4–3) 3.7 (3.3–4) 4.4 (4–4.8)
Regional metastases 1 (0.8–1.1) 1.4 (1.2–1.5) 1.7 (1.5–1.9)
Distant metastases 1.5 (1.4–1.7) 2.3 (2.1–2.5) 3 (2.7–3.3)
Low or intermediate-risk 9.5 (8.8–10.3) 11.2 (10.3–12) 12.3 (11.4–13.2)
High-risk or regional or distant metastases 5.2 (4.8–5.6) 7.3 (6.7–7.8) 9.1 (8.4–9.7)
Open in a new tab

Diagnostic activity corresponding to ‘intermediately high’ as in Sweden in 2016.

Fig 2. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer diagnosis by risk category for a simulated follow-up of 2,000,000 men from age 40 to age 100 under three different levels of life expectancy: Short as for birth cohort 1912; Intermediate as for birth cohort 1952; Long as for birth cohort 1992.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Fig 3. Lifetime risk of low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosis (in blue), and high risk or metastatic prostate cancer (in red) under three levels of diagnostic activity: Low as in Sweden 1992; Intermediate as in Sweden 2016; High as in Stockholm 2014; when the Stockholm-3 study invited men to measure their PSA [15].

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Fig 4. Lifetime risk of low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosis (in blue), and high risk or metastatic prostate cancer (in red) under three levels of life expectancy: Short as for birth cohort 1912; Intermediate as for birth cohort 1952; Long as for birth cohort 1992.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Lifetime risk of low-risk prostate cancer increased marginally from age 80 to age 100 for every scenario of diagnostic activity and life expectancy, whereas the lifetime risk of distant metastases doubled for all levels of diagnostic activity for men with a longer life expectancy (S1 and S2 Tables).

Discussion

In this simulation model, lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis was strongly associated with the level of diagnostic activity and to a lesser degree to potential life expectancy. High compared to low diagnostic activity increased the lifetime risk of low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer five-fold, and halved the risk of high-risk and metastatic prostate cancer, whereas long life expectancy modestly increased the lifetime risk of all prostate cancer risk categories.

The lifetime risk of disease can be estimated in multiple ways. Cumulative risk is commonly utilized for reporting cancer statistics in the Nordic countries (NORDCAN) to calculate the risk of a specific cancer diagnosis from birth until a specified age [16]. The standardized cumulative risk is a useful measure to compare lifetime risk between populations, as it is independent of life expectancy [17]. Since competing risks of death from other causes are not accounted for, the choice of the upper age limit can overestimate lifetime risk. The current probability method described by Goldberg in 1956 is a more accurate estimate of lifetime risk as it accounts for competing risks [18]. This method assumes that all registered cancers are first primaries, which may overestimate the lifetime risk if multiple primary cancers occur. This is not an issue for prostate cancer since death from second primary prostate cancer is rare. PRISM-PC uses the same principles as the cited probability method. Additionally, the model allows for adjustment of diagnostic activity and life expectancy.

In a study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program that applied the current probability method, the lifetime risk of common cancers was calculated using the DevCan software available at the SEER official website [19, 20]. Although African-American men had a higher incidence of prostate cancer than non-Hispanic white men, African-American men had a lower lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis due to shorter life expectancy. In a study from England the lifetime risk of prostate cancer in black men was 29% compared to 13% in white men, using the same software [21]. In a study from Australia, the lifetime risk of prostate cancer increased by 8% after the introduction of PSA testing [22]. A similar comparison can be made in our study. Men exposed to intermediate compared with low diagnostic activity, corresponding to diagnostic activity after the introduction of PSA testing in Sweden, had a 4% excess lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Ebeling et al. investigated the separate effects of life expectancy and the incidence of disease on the lifetime risk of myocardial infarction and hip fracture [23]. The decrease in the lifetime risk of these events was very small since the decrease in incidence due to preventive measures was counterbalanced by a concomitant increase in life expectancy. In our study long life expectancy and high diagnostic activity both increased the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis.

Disease incidence is an important measure to describe population-based disease burden as well as to compare different populations and time periods. In Sweden and the United States, around one third of all men age 60–79 are tested annually for PSA [24, 25]. The uptake of PSA testing has led to a two-fold increase in the age-standardized incidence of prostate cancer, first in the US from 55 to 107 new cases per 100,000 men between 1980–1995 and later in Sweden, from 52 to 111 new cases per 100,000 men between 1990–2005 [26]. This shows that diagnostic activity can drastically change the incidence of prostate cancer in a relatively short period of time.

Disease incidence, however, does not confirm the efficacy of a screening program. As demonstrated in the ProtecT screening and treatment trial, many of the men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are not destined to die from prostate cancer [27]. Conversely a decline in the incidence of metastatic disease associated with higher intensity screening may simply reflect diagnostic lead time. The true value of screening program can only be confirmed by a subsequent decline in prostate cancer mortality which requires data concerning the natural history of screen detected prostate cancer and the efficacy of treatment.

The strengths of our study stems from the validity and completeness of the National Prostate Cancer Register, which includes 98% of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden. Our model was based on a comprehensive, highly representative cohort that consisted of virtually all men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden during a 25-year period [28, 29]. Unlike previous models on prostate cancer that have tried to emulate screening trials, the PRISM-PC model is based on real-world data and relies on not only the uptake of PSA testing but all diagnostic activities leading to a prostate cancer diagnosis. Since no explicit assumptions are made on compliance, test properties, and the natural history of the disease, the model is flexible and allows for changes in incidence, diagnostic activity, and mortality.

A limitation of our model is that it is based on the assumption that risk factors for prostate cancer, other than age, remained unchanged during the simulated follow-up. Changes in these factors may potentially confound the effects of diagnostic activity in the model. However, since there are no known strong risk factors for prostate cancer except age and ethnicity, this should not impact our results [30]. All models are an approximation of reality, however, real-life follow-up data would be impossible to use for the study hypothesis since both diagnostic activity and life expectancy are continuously changing. Modelling techniques are therefore essential to test these factors independently. Another potential limitation of our study is the use of incidence as proxy for diagnostic activity instead of a direct measure of PSA-testing. However, since incidence is the sum of diagnostic activities, including intensity of PSA testing, biopsy frequency, and number of biopsy cores taken, this may in fact not be a disadvantage since an elevated PSA per se does not always lead to subsequent diagnostic work-up.

Conclusion

The lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly influenced by level of diagnostic activity and to a lesser extent by life expectancy. High diagnostic activity leads to an increased lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis overall, mostly due to a five-fold increased detection of low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. High diagnostic activity also leads to a two-fold decrease in the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Whether this leads to lower prostate cancer mortality or simply reflects diagnostic lead time cannot be determined from our results. Long life expectancy modestly increases the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis overall, especially for high-risk and metastatic prostate cancer.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overall and per risk category according to intensity of diagnostic.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (19.5KB, docx)
S2 Table. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overall and per category according to life expectancy for three birth cohorts.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This project was made possible by the continuous work of the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden (NPCR) steering group: Pär Stattin (chair), Ingela Franck Lissbrant (co-chair), Camilla Thellenberg, Johan Styrke, Hampus Nugin, Stefan Carlsson, David Robinson, Mats Andén, Johan Stranne, Jon Kindblom, Thomas Jiborn, Olof Ståhl, Maria Nyberg, Fredrik Sandin, Karin Hellström, Hans Joelsson and Gert Malmberg.

Data Availability

Data used in the present study was extracted from the Prostate Cancer Database Sweden (PCBaSe), which is based on the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden and linkage to several national health-data registers. The data cannot be shared publicly because the individual-level data contain potentially identifying and sensitive patient information and cannot be published due to legislation and ethical approval (https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se). Use of the data from national health-data registers is further restricted by the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/) and Statistics Sweden (https://www.scb.se/en/) which are Government Agencies providing access to the linked healthcare registers. The data will be shared on reasonable request in an application made to any of the steering groups of NPCR and PCBaSe. For detailed information, please see www.npcr.se/in-english, where registration forms, manuals, and annual reports from NPCR are available alongside a full list of publications from PCBaSe. The statistical program code used for the present study analyses can be provided on request (contact npcr@npcr.se).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by The Swedish Cancer Society (190030), and Uppsala County Council. These grants were unconditional, and the funding organization had no influence on the work performed.

References

  • 1.Cancer Research UK. Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2016-based Life expectancies and population projections. 2016; https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/risk-factors#ref1. Accessed 27. September, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 27. September, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bratt O, Drevin L, Akre O, Garmo H, Stattin P. Family History and Probability of Prostate Cancer, Differentiated by Risk Category: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2016;108(10). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Enblad AP, Bergengren O, Andrén O, Larsson A, Fall K, Johansson E, et al. PSA testing patterns in a large Swedish cohort before the implementation of organized PSA testing. Scandinavian journal of urology. 2020;54(5):376–381. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1797871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jonsson H, Holmström B, Duffy SW, Stattin P. Uptake of prostate-specific antigen testing for early prostate cancer detection in Sweden. International journal of cancer. 2011;129(8):1881–1888. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stattin P, Carlsson S, Holmström B, Vickers A, Hugosson J, Lilja H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality in areas with high and low prostate cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(3):dju007. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.National Board of Health and Welfare. Life expectancy 1751–2020. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/yearly-statistics—the-whole-country/life-expectancy/. Accessed 26.09.2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Westerberg M, Larsson R, Holmberg L, Stattin P, Garmo H. Simulation model of disease incidence driven by diagnostic activity. Statistics in medicine. 2021;40(5):1172–1188. doi: 10.1002/sim.8833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, Wigertz A, Nilsson P, Stattin P. Cohort Profile Update: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base—a refined prostate cancer trajectory. International journal of epidemiology. 2016;45(1):73–82. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Statistics Sweden. Folkmängd efter region, civilstånd, kön och år. År 1970–2019. 2020; Stockholm, Sweden. www.scb.se. Accessed 24 February, 2020.
  • 11.Bergengren O, Westerberg M, Holmberg L, Stattin P, Bill-Axelson A, Garmo H. Variation in Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Rates and Prostate Cancer Treatments and Outcomes in a National 20-Year Cohort. JAMA network open. 2021;4(5):e219444. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellstrom K, Fransson P, et al. Cohort Profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):956–967. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang Y, Land KC. Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. Taylor & Francis; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer Guidlines. www.nccn.org/guidelines. Accessed 20.03, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;16(16):1667–1676. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.(NORDCAN) CsftNc. https://nordcan.iarc.fr/. Accessed 22.12, 2021.
  • 17.Sasieni PD, Adams J. Standardized lifetime risk. American journal of epidemiology. 1999;149(9):869–875. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cashman RE, Gerhardt PR, Goldberg ID, Handy VH, Levin ML. The probability of developing cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1956;17(2):155–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Miller BA, Scoppa SM, Feuer EJ. Racial/ethnic patterns in lifetime and age-conditional risk estimates for selected cancers. Cancer. 2006;106(3):670–682. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.National Cancer Institute. DevCan—Probability of developing or dying of cancer [computer program]. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lloyd T, Hounsome L, Mehay A, Mee S, Verne J, Cooper A. Lifetime risk of being diagnosed with, or dying from, prostate cancer by major ethnic group in England 2008–2010. BMC medicine. 2015;13:171. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0405-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pathirana T, Hayen A, Doust J, Glasziou P, Bell K. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overdiagnosis in Australia: quantifying the risk of overdiagnosis associated with prostate cancer screening in Australia using a novel lifetime risk approach. BMJ open. 2019;9(3):e022457. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ebeling M, Modig K, Ahlbom A, Rau R. The effects of increasing longevity and changing incidence on lifetime risk differentials: A decomposition approach. PloS one. 2018;13(4):e0195307. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nordström T, Aly M, Clements MS, Weibull CE, Adolfsson J, Grönberg H. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is prevalent and increasing in Stockholm County, Sweden, Despite no recommendations for PSA screening: results from a population-based study, 2003–2011. European urology. 2013;63(3):419–425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shahangian S, Fan L, Sharma KP, Siegel DA. Use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the United States for men age ≥65, 1999–2015: Implications for practice interventions. Cancer reports (Hoboken, NJ). 2021;4(4):e1352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ervik M LF, Laversanne M, Ferlay J, Bray F. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Over Time. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2021; https://gco.iarc.fr/overtime. Accessed 02 February, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tomic K, Berglund A, Robinson D, Hjalm-Eriksson M, Carlsson S, Lambe M, et al. Capture rate and representativity of The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden). 2015;54(2):158–163. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tomic K, Sandin F, Wigertz A, Robinson D, Lambe M, Stattin P. Evaluation of data quality in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2015;51(1):101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mandair D, Rossi R, Pericleous M, Whyand T, Caplin M. Prostate cancer and the influence of dietary factors and supplements: A systematic review. Nutrition & metabolism. 2014;11:30. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-11-30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-23181Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Orrason, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please submit your revised manuscript by October 27, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Our staff editors have determined that your manuscript is likely within the scope of our Early Detection, Screening and Diagnosis of Cancer Call for Papers. This editorial initiative is headed by in-house PLOS editors. This Call for Papers aims to explore recent advances in the early detection of cancer and implications of these advances for patient survival. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/call-for-papers/early-detection-screening-and-diagnosis-of-cancer/

If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call.  Please note that being considered for the Call for Papers does not require additional peer review beyond the journal’s standard process and will not delay the publication of your manuscript if it is accepted by PLOS ONE. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Orrason,

Your manuscript “Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy” has been assessed by our reviewers. They have raised a number of points which we believe would improve the manuscript and may allow a revised version to be published in PLOS ONE. Their reports, together with any other comments, are below.

If you are able to fully address these points, we would encourage you to submit a revised manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Regards,

Dr. Donovan McGrowder

Associate Editor

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very good paper -- and well-written. The authors have shown convincingly that the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly influenced by diagnostic activity and to a lesser degree by life expectancy. I think this information will be useful to a broad segment of medical practitioners.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors use their newly developed Proxy‐based Risk‐stratified Incidence Simulation Model (PRISM) to validate this obvious truth, and to describe the interplay between age, incidence, mortality, and diagnostic activity in Swedish men between ages 40-100 to quantify the effect of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis overall and by risk categories. Overall, this is a simulation study, where the factors being simulated have not been described very well.

1. It is quite clear what the risk categories are – and how the patients were classified. However, it is not quite clear how the ‘diagnostic activity’ was quantified. Greater clarity as to how some men were classified as ‘low diagnostic activity’ vs ‘intermediate’ vs ‘high’ is warranted.

2. Similarly, please explain how ‘life expectancy’ was calculated.

3. Instead of simply a simulated follow up, the authors would benefit from comparing the simulation to a real life follow up, and determine whether that real life experience follows that of the simulation.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, authors examined the impact of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis. They employed a state transition simulation model based on Swedish population based data and simulated life trajectories of a large cohort of men from ages 40-100 to estimate the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Their analyses determined that the lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis is influenced by diagnostic activity. Higher exposure to diagnostic activity resulted in more prostate cancer diagnosis. Men exposed to high diagnostic activity were found to have five fold increased risk of low or intermediate risk prostate cancer and half the risk of high risk prostate cancer as compared to men with low diagnostic activity. Overall, it is a comprehensive study using a large cohort of men with interesting findings.

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 23;17(11):e0277784. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277784.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 Sep 2022

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very good paper -- and well-written. The authors have shown convincingly that the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly influenced by diagnostic activity and to a lesser degree by life expectancy. I think this information will be useful to a broad segment of medical practitioners.

RE: We thank reviewer #1 for his/her positive feedback.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors use their newly developed Proxy‐based Risk‐stratified Incidence Simulation Model (PRISM) to validate this obvious truth, and to describe the interplay between age, incidence, mortality, and diagnostic activity in Swedish men between ages 40-100 to quantify the effect of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis overall and by risk categories. Overall, this is a simulation study, where the factors being simulated have not been described very well.

1. It is quite clear what the risk categories are – and how the patients were classified. However, it is not quite clear how the ‘diagnostic activity’ was quantified. Greater clarity as to how some men were classified as ‘low diagnostic activity’ vs ‘intermediate’ vs ‘high’ is warranted.

2. Similarly, please explain how ‘life expectancy’ was calculated.

3. Instead of simply a simulated follow up, the authors would benefit from comparing the simulation to a real life follow up and determine whether that real life experience follows that of the simulation.

RE: We thank the reviewer for valuable remarks. The principles of the PRISM-PC simulation model has previously been thoroughly described (reference 8 and 11). We provide a reference to this methods paper and in addition we also provide a brief description of the model under Methods. We argue that a more detailed review of the model components is beyond the scope of this article and would be of little benefit for the readers of PLOSONE. However, if the editor still wants a more detailed description of the model we are of course willing to provide such a paragraph.

1. The diagnostic activity is difficult to quantify as the reviewer correctly points out. Diagnostic activity is based on a broad set of factors, such as uptake and intensity of PSA testing, biopsy frequency, number of biopsy cores taken and more recently use of MRT prostate etc. Long time series of such data are not available for the entire Swedish population. However, the result of high diagnostic activity is earlier diagnosis with increased proportion of men diagnosed with low an intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This proportion was therefore used as a proxy for diagnostic activity. Due to the lack of data on the above factors, the proxy is difficult to translate e.g., PSA testing rates. Instead, we use historical and geographical variations in the proxy due to similar variations in the underlying diagnostic activity from real life scenarios. These were based on ours and others qualitative knowledge of the historical diagnostic activity, motivating the names of the scenarios: low as in Sweden 1992, intermediate as in Sweden 2016 and high as in Stockholm 2014.

The relative differences in diagnostic activity are shown in the figure below for clarification:

Three levels of the proxy for diagnostic activity; low as in Sweden 1992 (green), intermediate as in Sweden 2016 (blue) and high as in Stockholm 2014 (red).

2. The age-conditional life expectancy of men without a prostate cancer diagnosis was calculated using comparator men without a prostate cancer diagnosis in PCBaSe using an age-period-cohort model using age, calendar period and birth cohort data. Age-period-cohort (APC) models are frequently used to estimate life expectancy (Fay et al. Age-conditional probabilities of developing cancer. Statistics in medicine. 2003, Smittenaar et al. Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035. British journal of cancer. 2016).

One of the strengths of our model is that a prostate cancer-free comparator cohort in PCBaSe was used to calculate the life expectancy of men without a prostate cancer diagnosis, whereas most studies are limited to general population life table data which also includes men with prostate cancer. Also, the model allowed us to extrapolate outside of observed calendar periods in order to explore hypothetical improvements in life-expectancy.

3. Correct. Real-life data would certainly be the ideal choice for our study hypothesis.

However, this is almost impossible to achieve since both diagnostic activity and life expectancy are continuously changing for each birth cohort. The important time horizon is also very long since the risk of prostate cancer becomes non-negligible after age 40 and is elevated throughout the rest of a man’s lifetime. We are not aware of any high-quality data with follow-up that extends that long. Modeling techniques are therefore essential to test these factors independently. To underline this we have added a sentence to the last paragraph in Discussion.

In our previous paper, the output of the simulation model was compared with observed data of incidence and mortality, with good agreement between the two (reference 8). Additional external validation based on data from other countries would be desirable if the appropriate data would be made available e.g., through collaborations.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, authors examined the impact of diagnostic activity and life expectancy on the lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis. They employed a state transition simulation model based on Swedish population based data and simulated life trajectories of a large cohort of men from ages 40-100 to estimate the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Their analyses determined that the lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis is influenced by diagnostic activity. Higher exposure to diagnostic activity resulted in more prostate cancer diagnosis. Men exposed to high diagnostic activity were found to have five fold increased risk of low or intermediate risk prostate cancer and half the risk of high risk prostate cancer as compared to men with low diagnostic activity. Overall, it is a comprehensive study using a large cohort of men with interesting findings.

RE: We thank the reviewer for a positive comment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Lifetime_risk_PLOSOne_Answer_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (88.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

3 Nov 2022

Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy

PONE-D-22-23181R1

Dear Dr. Orrason,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor:

Dear Dr. Orrason,

The manuscript entitled “Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy” was revised in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and is provisionally accepted pending final checks for formatting and technical requirements.

Regards,

Dr. Donovan McGrowder (Academic Editor)

Acceptance letter

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

14 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-23181R1

Diagnostic activity impacts lifetime risk of prostate cancer diagnosis more strongly than life expectancy

Dear Dr. Orrason:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Donovan Anthony McGrowder

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overall and per risk category according to intensity of diagnostic.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (19.5KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer overall and per category according to life expectancy for three birth cohorts.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (16.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Lifetime_risk_PLOSOne_Answer_to_reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (88.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data used in the present study was extracted from the Prostate Cancer Database Sweden (PCBaSe), which is based on the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden and linkage to several national health-data registers. The data cannot be shared publicly because the individual-level data contain potentially identifying and sensitive patient information and cannot be published due to legislation and ethical approval (https://etikprovningsmyndigheten.se). Use of the data from national health-data registers is further restricted by the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/) and Statistics Sweden (https://www.scb.se/en/) which are Government Agencies providing access to the linked healthcare registers. The data will be shared on reasonable request in an application made to any of the steering groups of NPCR and PCBaSe. For detailed information, please see www.npcr.se/in-english, where registration forms, manuals, and annual reports from NPCR are available alongside a full list of publications from PCBaSe. The statistical program code used for the present study analyses can be provided on request (contact npcr@npcr.se).

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES