Search

The European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed that Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening results in a significant prostate cancer mortality reduction. Although there are concerns on overdiagnosis and overtreatment, it has been shown that the benefits can outweigh the harms if screening is stopped in older ages to prevent overdiagnosis. A limited screening program (for example screening at ages 55–59 years), including active surveillance for men with low-risk tumors, can even be cost-saving, compared with testing in an opportunistic setting in the wrong ages, as currently in Europe. Further improvements are expected in the use of active surveillance and in discrimination between indolent and significant disease due to new biomarkers and magnetic resonance imaging. However, these future developments are no reason to postpone feasibility studies of high-quality PSA screening and reduce opportunistic testing at old ages.

Objective To assess the value of a positive family history (FH) as a risk factor for prostate cancer incidence and grade among men undergoing organised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a population-based study. Subjects and Methods The study cohort comprised all attendees of the Swiss arm of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) with systematic PSA level tests every 4 years. Men reporting first-degree relative(s) diagnosed with prostate cancer were considered to have a positive FH. Biopsy was exclusively PSA triggered at a PSA level threshold of 3 ng/mL. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer diagnosis. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were used. Results Of 4 932 attendees with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 60.9 (57.6–65.1) years, 334 (6.8%) reported a positive FH. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 11.6 (10.3–13.3) years. Cumulative prostate cancer incidence was 60/334 (18%, positive FH) and 550/4 598 (12%, negative FH) [odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–2.2, P = 0.001). In both groups, most prostate cancer diagnosed was low grade. There were no significant differences in PSA level at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score or Gleason score on pathological specimen among men who underwent radical prostatectomy between both groups. On multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06), baseline PSA level (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12–1.14), and FH (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.24–2.14) were independent predictors for overall prostate cancer incidence (all P < 0.001). Only baseline PSA level (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12–1.16, P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. The proportion of interval prostate cancer diagnosed in-between the screening rounds was not significantly different. Conclusion Irrespective of the FH status, the current PSA-based screening setting detects the majority of aggressive prostate cancers and missed only a minority of interval cancers with a 4-year screening algorithm. Our results suggest that men with a positive FH are at increased risk of low-grade but not aggressive prostate cancer.

Recent studies indicate frequent early PSA retesting unrelated of men's baseline PSA, which increases the harms of early detection especially among men with low PSA. The current study investigates the PCa incidence among men with baseline PSA

UNLABELLED Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Low-risk prostate cancer is frequently diagnosed in the context of PSA screening or during a routine check-up. For those patients, to avoid possible overtreatment AS is an increasingly chosen treatment option. However, the concept of AS could possibly misclassify potentially dangerous PCa as a low-risk disease resulting in inferior cancer control outcomes. In the present study, we could demonstrate that the histopathological results of patients treated by RP in course of AS are significantly better if the selection criteria for AS are entirely fulfilled. Our findings underline the importance of a strict and precise admittance procedure for patients with early prostate cancer who are willing to undergo an AS programme. OBJECTIVE • To compare the histopathological outcomes of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) after an initial active surveillance (AS) for localized, low-risk prostate cancers (PCa) among men who fulfilled the Epstein criteria at diagnosis with those who did not. PATIENTS AND METHODS • In all, 283 patients with localized PCa were initially managed at our institution with AS. • In all, ≈ 50% originated from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) participants from Switzerland: 75 (26.5%) patients underwent treatment during follow-up and 61 were treated with RP (21.6%). • These patients were stratified into those who did (n= 39) vs those who did not (n= 22) entirely fulfil AS inclusion criteria according to Epstein et al. at PCa diagnosis. RESULTS • Patients who did completely fulfil the AS inclusion criteria had significantly lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-values (4.9 vs 7.8 ng/mL; P= 0.02), a significantly lower PSA density at diagnosis (0.09 vs 0.2 ng/mL/ccm; P= 0.007) and at RP, a higher proportion of organ-confined cancers (89.7% vs 59.1%, P= 0.02) and fewer positive surgical margins (25.6% vs 40.9%). • However, the rate of favourable histopathological outcome, defined as organ-confined disease with negative surgical margins, was statistically significantly higher in the group fulfilling AS criteria (69.2% vs 40.9%; P= 0.03). CONCLUSIONS • In our AS series, 26.5% of the patients underwent definitive therapy. • Most patients treated with RP had organ-confined disease in the majority of cases, especially when the Epstein criteria were rigorously fulfilled at PCa diagnosis. • This underlines the importance of a strict and precise per protocol AS for patients with early PCa, otherwise there is a risk of missing more significant disease.

Objective To determine the value of an intra-operative electrostimulatory test of post-ganglionic nerves for the preservation of ejaculation in primary and secondary retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection (RLND). Patients and methods Between 1991 and 1994, 21 patients with non-seminomatous testicular cancer of clinical stage A and 15 patients with bulky or clinical stage C disease underwent primary or secondary RLND, respectively. During surgery, post-ganglionic nerves were electrostimulated at 30 Hz and up to 20 V, for 3–10 s. Emissions were recorded simultaneously by suprapubic ultrasonography of the seminal vesicals and bladder neck (in 36 patients) and by endoscopy of the posterior urethra (in 11 patients). Results A positive intra-operative emission test in 15 pathological stage A (with bilateral nerve-sparing) and six pathological stage B (with contralateral nerve-sparing) patients predicted the post-operative preservation of antegrade ejaculation. In the group undergoing secondary RLND, the test allowed the identification and sparing of the emission-related nerves in four of 15 patients with a residual mass consisting of necrosis/fibrosis, and preserved antegrade ejaculation after surgery. Conclusions A positive result in the seminal emission test predicted the preservation of antegrade ejaculation after surgery. The test is not necessary in patients with clinical stage A disease, but improves the chances of reducing morbidity. If the residual mass consists of necrosis or fibrosis, then electrostimulation during secondary RLND can help to identify important nerve structures when their origin is unknown initially. However, attempts to retain nerve function must not jeopardize the patient's survival. The test can be an option for clinical stage B disease with initial bilateral RLND, to identify and preserve emission-relevant nerves while the retroperitoneal space is removed radically. The test may also give additional information about the physiology of emission.