Search

Background: Screening is not recommended for prostate cancer in the UK. Asymptomatic men aged ≥50 years can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test following counselling on potential harms and benefits. There are areas of clinical uncertainty among GPs, resulting in the content and quality of counselling varying. Aim: To produce a consensus that can influence guidelines for UK primary care on the optimal use of the PSA test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection. Design and setting: Prostate Cancer UK facilitated a RAND/UCLA consensus. Method: Statements covering five topics were developed with a subgroup of experts. A panel of 15 experts in prostate cancer scored (round one) statements on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to nine (strongly agree). Panellists met to discuss statements before rescoring (round two). A lived experience panel of seven men scored a subset of statements with outcomes fed into the main panel. Results: Of the initial 94 statements reviewed by the expert panel, a final 48/85 (56%) achieved consensus. In the absence of screening, there was consensus on proactive approaches to initiate discussions about the PSA test with men who were at higher-than-average risk. Conclusion: Improvements in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway may have reduced some of the harms associated with PSA testing; however, several areas of uncertainty remain in relation to screening, including optimal PSA thresholds for referral and intervals for retesting. There is consensus on proactive approaches to testing in higher-than-average risk groups. This should prompt a review of current guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial assesses whether screening for prostate-specific antigen reduces prostate cancer mortality at 15-year follow-up. Key Points: Question: In men aged 50 to 69 years, does a single invitation for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test reduce prostate cancer mortality at 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for testing? Findings: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of 415 357 men aged 50 to 69 years randomized to a single invitation for PSA screening (n = 195 912) or a control group without PSA screening (n = 219 445) and followed up for a median of 15 years, risk of death from prostate cancer was lower in the group invited to screening (0.69% vs 0.78%; mean difference, 0.09%) compared with the control group. Meaning: Compared with no invitation for routine PSA testing, a single invitation for a PSA screening test reduced prostate cancer mortality at a median follow-up of 15 years, but the absolute mortality benefit was small. Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer–specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer–specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P =.03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P <.001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P <.001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P =.11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sedentary behaviours have been associated with increased risks of some common cancers in epidemiological studies; however, it is unclear if these associations are causal. Methods: We used univariable and multivariable two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) to examine potential causal relationships between sedentary behaviours and risks of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Genetic variants associated with self-reported leisure television watching and computer use were identified from a recent genome-wide association study (GWAS). Data related to cancer risk were obtained from cancer GWAS consortia. A series of sensitivity analyses were applied to examine the robustness of the results to the presence of confounding. Results: A 1-standard deviation (SD: 1.5h/day) increment in hours of television watching increased risk of breast cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–1.26) and colorectal cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16– 1.49) while there was little evidence of an association for prostate cancer risk (OR per 1-SD: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84–1.06). After adjusting for years of education, the effect estimates for television watching were attenuated (breast cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.92–1.27; colorectal cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90–1.31). Post hoc analyses showed that years of education might have a possible confounding and mediating role in the association between television watching with breast and colorectal cancer. Consistent results were observed for each cancer site according to sex (colorectal cancer), anatomical subsites and cancer subtypes. There was little evidence of associations between genetically predicted computer use and cancer risk. Conclusions: Our univariable analysis identified some positive associations between hours of television watching and risks of breast and colorectal cancer. However, further adjustment for additional lifestyle factors especially years of education attenuated these results. Future studies using objective measures of exposure can provide new insights into the possible role of sedentary behaviour in cancer development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric cancer, either in combination with targeted therapies or as a comparator in clinical trials, is uncertain. The subtle yet crucial differences in platinum-based regimens' safety and synergy with combination treatments need consideration., Methods: We analyzed cases from the AGAMENON-SEOM Spanish registry of HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with platinum and fluoropyrimidine from 2008 to 2021. This study focused exclusively on patients receiving one of the four regimens: FOLFOX (5-FU and oxaliplatin), CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), CP (capecitabine and cisplatin) and FP (5-FU and cisplatin). The aim was to determine the most effective and tolerable platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen and to identify any prognostic factors., Results: Among 1293 patients, 36% received either FOLFOX (n = 468) or CAPOX (n = 466), 20% CP (n = 252), and 8% FP (n = 107). FOLFOX significantly increased PFS (progression free survival) compared to CP, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.009). The duration of treatment was similar across all groups. Survival outcomes among regimens were similar, but analysis revealed worse ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status), > 2 metastatic sites, bone metastases, hypoalbuminemia, higher NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and CP regimen as predictors of poor PFS. Fatigue was common in all treatments, with the highest incidence in FOLFOX (77%), followed by FP (72%), CAPOX (68%), and CP (60%). Other notable toxicities included neuropathy (FOLFOX 69%, CAPOX 62%), neutropenia (FOLFOX 52%, FP 55%), hand-foot syndrome in CP (46%), and thromboembolic events (FP 12%, CP 11%)., Conclusions: FOLFOX shown better PFS than CP. Adverse effects varied: neuropathy was more common with oxaliplatin, while thromboembolism was more frequent with cisplatin., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with 1.9 million new cases in 2020 and a predicted rise to 3.2 million in 2040. Screening programmes are already in place to aid early detection and secondary prevention of CRC, but the rising prevalence means additional approaches are required in both primary and secondary prevention settings. Preventive therapy, whereby natural or synthetic agents are used to prevent, reverse or delay disease development, could be an effective strategy to further reduce cancer risk and potential agents have already been identified in conventional observational studies. However, as such studies are vulnerable to confounding and reverse causation, we aim to evaluate these observed relationships using Mendelian randomization (MR), an alternative causal inference approach which should be less susceptible to these biases., Methods and Analysis: We will use two-sample MR, which uses two independent samples for the exposure and outcome data, to investigate previously reported observational associations of multiple potential preventive agents with CRC risk. We define preventive agents as any synthetic (e.g. approved medication) or natural (e.g. micronutrient, endogenous hormone) molecule used to reduce the risk of cancer. We will first extract potential preventive agents that have been previously linked to CRC risk in observational studies from reviews of the literature. We will then evaluate whether we can develop a genetic instrument for each preventive agent from previously published genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of direct measures of molecular traits (e.g. circulating levels of protein drug targets, blood-based biomarkers of dietary vitamins). The summary statistics from these GWASs, and a large GWAS of CRC, will be used in two-sample MR analyses to investigate the causal effect of putative preventive therapy agents on CRC risk. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of findings to potential violations of MR assumptions., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Fryer E et al.)