Original article
A Markov model of the natural history of prostate cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)90029-9Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to lay a foundation for future cost-benefit analyses evaluating the public health impact of treatment and screening protocols for prostate cancer. Specifically we wanted to define the relative impact on cancer-specific mortality rates of the individual epidemiological components: pathological incidences by age groups, cancer progression rates, and the effect of competing causes of death, assuming expectant management (i.e. no definitive treatment). A biological model of prostate cancer incidence and progression was converted into a standard Markov tree where competing causes of death could occur. Weighted averages of progression rates were obtained from clinical studies. Separate cohorts of 30 year old black and white men were followed for 50 years. The model yielded cancer-specific mortality rates, overall mortality rates, and pathologic prevalences for both white and black males, consistent with the literature. Sensitivity analyses showed that of all the parameters studied, the pathological incidence of cancer in men under 50 years of age had the greatest impact on the cancer-specific mortality rates. Also important was the annual probability of progression of Al lesions. However the other parameters including pathological incidence in older males, and progression from locally-extensive to metastatic lesions had much smaller effects. In summary, this model correlates the clinical literature with the epidemiology of prostate cancer and can be used for further decision analyses. We recommend that future research be done to more precisely quantify the pathological incidence of prostate cancer in men under 50–60 years of age. More certainty is also needed before generalizing the results of relatively small Al series to millions of men, since A1 progression rates critically affect the eventual cancer-specific mortality. Enough uncertainty remains at this point however, that we cannot advocate widespread screening for prostate cancer until its merit be demonstrated either by the definitive long term study, or by examination of costs and quality-of-life-adjusted benefits.

References (89)

  • J.R. Beck et al.

    A convenient approximation of life expectancy (The “DEALE”)

    Am J Med

    (1982)
  • J.I. Epstein et al.

    Prognosis of untreated Stage Al prostatic carcinoma: a study of 94 cases with extended follow-up

    J Urol

    (1986)
  • J.-E. Johansson et al.

    Natural history of localized prostatic cancer

    Lancet

    (1989)
  • G. Zhang et al.

    Long-term follow-up results after expectant management of Stage Al prostatic cancer

    J Urol

    (1991)
  • B.A. Lowe et al.

    Management of Stage A prostate cancer with a high probability of progression

    J Urol

    (1988)
    B.A. Lowe et al.

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • D.A. Kuban et al.

    Prognosis in patients with local recurrence after definitive irradiation for prostatic carcinoma

    Cancer

    (1989)
  • R.P. Myers et al.

    Course of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy

    Prostate

    (1983)
  • D. Paulson et al.

    Radical prostatectomy for clinical Stage T1-2NOMO prostatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results

    J Urol

    (1990)
  • J. Adolfsson et al.

    Natural course of clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma in men less than 70 years old

    J Urol

    (1991)
  • A. Larson et al.

    Five-year follow-up of patients with localized prostatic carcinoma initially referred for expectant treatment

    Scand J Urol Nephr Suppl 93

    (1985)
  • D.F. Paulson et al.

    The Uro-Oncology Research Group. Radiation therapy versus delayed androgen deprivation for Stage C carcinoma of the prostate

    J Urol

    (1984)
  • D.P. Byar

    The Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group's studies of cancer of prostate

    Cancer

    (1973)
  • M.A. Bagshaw

    Potential for radiotherapy alone in prostate cancer

    Cancer

    (1985)
  • R.T. Scardino

    Is radiotherapy effective for locally advanced (stage C or T3) prostate cancer?

  • R.P. Gibbons et al.

    Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: results and complications

    J Urol

    (1986)
  • G.E. Carter et al.

    Results of local and/or systemic adjuvant therapy in the management of pathological stage C or D1 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • W.J. Catalona et al.

    Intermediate-term survival results in clinically understaged prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • D.F. Paulson et al.

    Uro-Oncology Research Group. Extended field radiation therapy versus delayed hormonal therapy in node positive prostatic adenocarcinoma

    J Urol

    (1982)
  • E.V. Kramolowsky

    The value of testosterone deprivation in Stage D1 carcinoma of the prostate

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • J.A. Smith et al.

    Impact of external irradiation on local symptoms and survival free of disease in patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis from adenocarcinoma of the prostate

    J Urol

    (1984)
  • W. Barzell et al.

    Prostatic adenocarcinoma: relationship of grade and local extent to the pattern of metastates

    J Urol

    (1977)
  • L.A. Gervasi et al.

    Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • G.R. Prout et al.

    Nodal involvement as a prognostic indicator in patients with prostatic carcinoma

    J Urol

    (1980)
  • Leuprolide versus diethylstilbestrol for metastic prostate cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (1984)
  • W.F. Whitmore

    Natural history of low-stage prostatic cancer and the impact of early detection

    Urol Clin N Am

    (1990)
  • E. Viadana et al.

    The metastatic spread of kidney and prostate cancers in man

    Neoplasma

    (1976)
  • F.K. Arnheim

    Carcinoma of the prostate: a study of the postmortem findings in one hundred and seventy-six cases

    J Urol

    (1948)
  • J.E. McNeal

    Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate

    Cancer

    (1969)
  • T.A. Stamey et al.

    Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. II. Radical prostatectomy treated patients

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • B.A. Lowe et al.

    Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: an analysis of the predictors of progression

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • E. Silverberg

    Statistical and epidemiological data on urologic cancer

    Cancer

    (1987)
  • W.F. Whitmore

    Background for screening: natural history and treatment

  • C.C. Boring et al.

    Cancer statistics 1991

    CA

    (1991)
  • J.R. Beck et al.

    The Markov process in medical prognosis

    Med Decis Making

    (1983)
  • Cited by (43)

    • Localized prostate cancer

      2002, Current Problems in Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      The decision about treatment of a localized prostate cancer compares the immediate risk of perioperative death and morbidity with the ongoing risk of metastatic spread of prostate cancer. For such problems, the Markov process is a particularly effective model.166,167 Decision-making can be further tailored to the particular values of an individual patient through values assessment (ie, compared with the value of a year lived as a healthy man, how a man with prostate cancer would value a year living with the cancer untreated or in a state of incontinence or with the loss of libido from androgen ablation).4

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text