Search

Purpose: This study aims to externally validate the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC)-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI within a Dutch clinical cohort. Methods: Men subjected to prostate biopsies, between 2018 and 2021, due to a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) were retrospectively included. The performance of the RPCRC-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI was analyzed in terms of discrimination, calibration and net benefit. In addition, the need for recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds for referral was investigated. Clinically significant (cs) PCa was defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4. Results: A total of 1575 men were included in the analysis. PCa was diagnosed in 63.2% (996/1575) of men and csPCa in 41.7% (656/1575) of men. Use of the RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 37.3% (587/1575) of all MRIs within this cohort, thereby missing 18.3% (120/656) of csPCa diagnoses. After recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds to 20% for PCa and 10% for csPCa, use of the recalibrated RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 15.1% (238/1575) of all MRIs, resulting in 5.3% (35/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed. The performance of the RPCRC-MRI was good; use of this risk calculator could have prevented 10.7% (169/1575) of all biopsies, resulting in 1.2% (8/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed. Conclusion: The RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the probability of having csPCa within this Dutch clinical cohort, resulting in significant numbers of csPCa diagnoses being missed. For optimal performance of a risk calculator in a specific cohort, evaluation of its performance within the population under study is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recommendations against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in 2012 have increased advanced-stage diagnosis and prostate cancer–specific mortality rates. To present the position of the European Association of Urology (EAU) in 2021 and provide recommendations for the use of PSA testing as part of a risk-adapted strategy for the early detection of prostate cancer. The authors combined their review of relevant literature, including the EAU prostate cancer guidelines 2021 update, with their own knowledge to provide an expert opinion, representing the EAU's position in 2021. The EAU has developed a risk-adapted early prostate cancer detection strategy for well-informed men based on PSA testing, risk calculators, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, which can differentiate significant from insignificant prostate cancer. This approach largely avoids the overdiagnosis/overtreatment of men unlikely to experience disease-related symptoms during their lifetime and facilitates an early diagnosis of men with significant cancer to receive active treatment. It also reduces advanced-stage diagnosis, thereby potentially reducing prostate cancer–specific mortality and improving quality of life. Education is required among urologists, general practitioners, radiologists, policy makers, and healthy men, including endorsement by the European Commission to adapt the European Council's screening recommendations in its 2022 plan and requests to individual countries for its incorporation into national cancer plans. This risk-adapted approach for the early detection of prostate cancer will reverse current unfavourable trends and ultimately save lives. The European Association of Urology has developed a patient information leaflet and algorithm for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. It can identify men who do not need magnetic resonance imaging or a biopsy and those who would not show any symptoms versus those with more aggressive disease who require further tests/treatment. We need to raise awareness of this algorithm to ensure that all well-informed men at risk of significant prostate cancer are offered a prostate-specific antigen test. A risk-adapted early prostate cancer detection strategy, incorporating prostate-specific antigen testing, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, risk calculators, and biomarkers, will avoid overdiagnosis/overtreatment of insignificant cancers and ensure early detection and treatment of significant cancers, thereby improving quality of life and reducing prostate cancer–related deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The Movember Foundation launched the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative to create a global consensus on the selection and monitoring of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). The aim of this study is to present data on inclusion and follow-up for AS in this unique global AS database. Patients and Methods Between 2014 and 2016, the database was created by combining patient data from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide (USA, Canada, Australasia, UK and Europe). Data on a total of 15 101 patients were included. Descriptive statistics were used to report patients' clinical and demographic characteristics at the time of PCa diagnosis, clinical follow-up, discontinuation of AS and subsequent treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to report discontinuation rates over time. Results At diagnosis, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 65 (60-70) years and the median prostate-specific antigen level was 5.4 (4.0-7.3) ng/mL. Most patients had clinical stage T1 disease (71.8%), a biopsy Gleason score of 6 (88.8%) and one tumour-positive biopsy core (60.3%). Patients on AS had a median follow-up time of 2.2 (1.0-5.0) years. After 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up, respectively, 58%, 39% and 23% of patients were still on AS. The current version of GAP3 has limited data on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), quality of life and genomic testing. Conclusions GAP3 is the largest worldwide collaboration integrating patient data from men with PCa on AS. The results will allow individual patients and clinicians to have greater confidence in the personalized decision to either delay or proceed with active treatment. Longer follow-up and the evaluation of MRI, new genomic markers and patient-related outcomes will result in even more valuable data and eventually in better patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction.Objective: To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO.Design: Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models.Setting: Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States.Participants: Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization.Intervention: Prostate cancer screening.Measurements: Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began.Results: Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening.Limitation: The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up.Conclusion: After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate biopsy complications and hospital admissions that could be reduced by the use of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer ( ERSPC) risk calculators. Materials and Methods All biopsies performed in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC between 1993 and 2015 were included. Biopsy complications and hospital admission data were prospectively recorded in questionnaires that were completed 2 weeks after biopsy. The ERSPC risk calculators 3 ( RC3) and 4 ( RC4) were applied to men attending the first and subsequent rounds of screening, respectively. Applying the predefined RC3/4 probability thresholds for prostate cancer ( PCa) risk of ≥12.5% and high-grade PCa risk ≥3%, we assessed the number of complications, admissions and costs that could be reduced by avoiding biopsies in men below these thresholds. Results A total of 10 747 biopsies with complete questionnaires were included. For these biopsies a complication rate of 67.9% (7294/10 747), a post-biopsy fever rate of 3.9% (424/10747) and a hospital admission rate of 0.9% (92/10747) were recorded. The fever rate was found to be static over the years, but the hospital admission rate tripled from 0.6% (1993-1996) to 2.1% (2009-2015). Among 7704 biopsies which fit the criteria for RC3 or RC4, 35.8% of biopsies (2757/7704), 37.4% of complications (1972/5268), 39.4% of fever events (128/325) and 42.3% of admissions (30/71) could have been avoided by using one of the risk calculators. More complications could have been avoided if RC4 had been used and for more recent biopsies (2009-2015). Our findings show that 35.9% of the total cost of biopsies and complication treatment could have been avoided. Conclusion A significant proportion of biopsy complications, hospital admissions and costs could be reduced if biopsy decisions were based on ERSPC risk calculators instead of PSA only. This effect was most prominent in more recent biopsies and in men with repeated biopsies or screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The survival rate for men with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 prostate cancer (PCa) without invasive cribriform (CR) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC) is similar to that for ISUP grade 1. If updated into the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC Rotterdam) risk calculator number 3 (RC3), this may further improve upfront selection of men who need a biopsy. Objective To improve the number of possible biopsies avoided, while limiting undiagnosed clinically important PCa by applying the updated RC3 for risk-based patient selection. Design, setting, and participants The RC3 is based on the first screening round of the ERSPC Rotterdam, which involved 3616 men. In 2015, histopathologic slides for PCa cases ( n = 885) were re-evaluated. Low-risk (LR) PCa was defined as ISUP grade 1 or 2 without CR/IDC. High-risk (HR) PCa was defined as ISUP grade 2 with CR/IDC and PCa with ISUP grade≥3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We updated the RC3 using multinomial logistic regression analysis, including data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume, for predicting LR and HR PCa. Predictive accuracy was quantified using receiver operating characteristic analysis and decision curve analysis. Results and limitations Men without PCa could effectively be distinguished from men with LR PCa and HR PCa (area under the curve 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–0.72 and 0.92, 95% CI 0.90–0.94). At a 1% risk threshold, the updated calculator would lead to a 34% reduction in unnecessary biopsies, while only 2% of HR PCa cases would be undiagnosed. Conclusions A relatively simple risk stratification tool augmented with a highly sensitive contemporary pathologic biopsy classification would result in a considerable decrease in unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis of potentially indolent disease. Patient summary We improved a well-known prostate risk calculator with a new pathology classification system that better reflects disease burden. This new risk calculator allows individualized prediction of the chance of having (potentially aggressive) biopsy-detectable prostate cancer and can guide shared decision-making when considering prostate biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To calculate design-corrected estimates of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality by centre in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Setting The ERSPC has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men invited to screening with follow-up truncated at 13 years. Centres either used pre-consent randomisation (effectiveness design) or post-consent randomisation (efficacy design). Methods In six centres (three effectiveness design, three efficacy design) with follow-up until the end of 2010, or maximum 13 years, the effect of screening was estimated as both effectiveness (mortality reduction in the target population) and efficacy (reduction in those actually screened). Results The overall crude prostate cancer mortality risk ratio in the intervention arm vs control arm for the six centres was 0.79 ranging from a 14% increase to a 38% reduction. The risk ratio was 0.85 in centres with effectiveness design and 0.73 in those with efficacy design. After correcting for design, overall efficacy was 27%, 24% in pre-consent and 29% in post-consent centres, ranging between a 12% increase and a 52% reduction. Conclusion The estimated overall effect of screening in attenders (efficacy) was a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years’ follow-up. The variation in efficacy between centres was greater than the range in risk ratio without correction for design. The centre-specific variation in the mortality reduction could not be accounted for by the randomisation method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives A total of 15 men who died of prostate cancer had cT1/2 biopsy Gleason score ≤6 prostate cancer at prevalence screening in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam. Our objective was to explain (part of) these prostate cancer deaths by undergrading with the classical Gleason score. Methods Biopsy specimens of 98 men with classical Gleason score ≤6 or 3 + 4 = 7 at prevalence screening in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam were retrospectively reviewed by two pathologists using the International Society of Urological Pathology 2014 modified Gleason score. These 98 men included 15 men with cT1/2 classical Gleason score ≤6 who died of prostate cancer (cases) and 83 randomly selected men with classical Gleason score ≤6 or 3 + 4 = 7 (controls). The primary outcome was the reclassification rate from classical Gleason score ≤6 to modified classical Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 (grade group 2) stratified for prostate cancer death. The secondary outcome was the rate of cribriform/intraductal carcinoma in Gleason score-reclassified men stratified for prostate cancer death. Results A total of 79 out of 98 men had classical Gleason score ≤6 prostate cancer. A total of eight out of 15 (53%) prostate cancer deaths with classical Gleason score ≤6 were reclassified to modified Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7, compared with 16 out of 64 (25%) men with non-fatal prostate cancer ( P = 0.017). A total of five out of eight (63%) Gleason score-reclassified men with fatal prostate cancer had cribriform/ intraductal carcinoma, compared with two out of 16 (13%) Gleason score-reclassified men with non-fatal prostate cancer ( P = 0.011). Conclusions Part of the prostate cancer deaths with Gleason score ≤6 at prevalence screening in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam could be explained by biopsy undergrading. The present study confirms that the International Society of Urological Pathology 2014 modified Gleason score is more accurate for prognostic assessment based on prostate biopsy than the classical Gleason score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The 4-kallikrein panel, commercially available as the 4Kscore™, is a reflex test for prostate cancer early detection that has been extensively validated in multiple international cohorts. It has been suggested that use of such reflex tests be limited to those with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination. We aimed to determine the value of the panel in men outside this “diagnostic gray zone.” Materials and Methods We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis using data from prior studies on the 4-kallikrein panel. We calculated the properties of the panel for predicting high grade (Gleason 7+) cancer in a subgroup of men with either positive digital rectal examination or prostate specific antigen 10 to 25 ng/ml. Results A total 2,891 men from 8 cohorts were included. An important proportion of patients, including 32% in the United States validation study, had prostate specific antigen 10 to 25 ng/ml or a positive digital rectal examination. For men with prostate specific antigen 10 to 25 ng/ml the fixed-effects estimate for the discrimination of the kallikrein model was 0.84 vs 0.69 for the base model (difference 0.128, 95% CI 0.098–0.159). In the positive digital rectal examination group discrimination was 0.82 vs 0.72 (difference 0.092, 95% CI 0.069–0.115). Decision analysis showed a clinical net benefit for use of the panel in this subgroup with a reduction in biopsy rates of about 20% and only a small number of high grade cancers missed, or fewer than 3% of those not biopsied. Conclusions The use of the kallikrein panel in men with a positive digital rectal examination or prostate specific antigen 10 to 25 ng/ml is justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries.Methods: Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results.Results: There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening.Conclusions: Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus "good practice."Methods: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.Results: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains.Conclusions: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386-3393. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To study the risk of serial prostate biopsies on complications in men on active surveillance (AS) and determine the effect of complications on receiving further biopsies. Patients and methods In the global Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, men are prospectively followed on AS and repeat prostate biopsies are scheduled at 1, 4, and 7 years after the diagnostic biopsy, or once yearly if prostate-specific antigen-doubling time is <10 years. Data on complications after biopsy, including infection, haematuria, haematospermia, and pain, were retrospectively collected for all biopsies taken during follow-up in men from several large participating centres. Generalised estimating equations were used to test predictors of infection after biopsy. Competing risk analysis was used to compare the rates of men receiving further biopsies between men with and without previous complications. Results In all, 2 184 biopsies were taken in 1 164 men. Infection was reported after 55 biopsies (2.5%), and one in five men reported any form of complication. At multivariable analysis, the number of previous biopsies was not a significant predictor of infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.43). The only significant predictor for infection was the type of prophylaxis used. Of all men with a complication at the diagnostic or first repeat biopsy, 21% did not have a repeat biopsy at the time a repeat biopsy was scheduled according to protocol, vs 12% for men without a previous biopsy complication. Conclusion In our present cohort of men on AS, we found no evidence that repeat prostate biopsy in itself posed a risk of infection. However, complications after biopsy were not uncommon and after a complication men were less likely to have further biopsies. We should aim to safely reduce the amount of repeat biopsies in men on AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate may improve the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer detection in MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) in comparison to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx). Objective Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence regarding the diagnostic benefits of MRI-TBx versus TRUS-Bx in detection of overall prostate cancer (primary objective) and significant/insignificant prostate cancer (secondary objective). Evidence acquisition A systematic review of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Only men with a positive MRI were included. Evidence synthesis The reports we included (16 studies) used both MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx for prostate cancer detection. A cumulative total of 1926 men with positive MRI were included, with prostate cancer prevalence of 59%. MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx did not significantly differ in overall prostate cancer detection (sensitivity 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.89, and 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.88, respectively). MRI-TBx had a higher rate of detection of significant prostate cancer compared to TRUS-Bx (sensitivity 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.94 vs 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.84) and a lower rate of detection of insignificant prostate cancer (sensitivity 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.64 vs 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.77–0.87). Subgroup analysis revealed an improvement in significant prostate cancer detection by MRI-TBx in men with previous negative biopsy, rather than in men with initial biopsy (relative sensitivity 1.54, 95% CI 1.05–2.57 vs 1.10, 95% CI 1.00–1.22). Because of underlying methodological flaws of MRI-TBx, the comparison of MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx needs to be regarded with caution. Conclusions In men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer and a subsequent positive MRI, MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx did not differ in overall prostate cancer detection. However, MRI-TBx had a higher rate of detection of significant prostate cancer and a lower rate of detection of insignificant prostate cancer compared with TRUS-Bx. Patient summary We reviewed recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for guidance and targeting of prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. We found evidence to suggest that MRI-guided targeted biopsy benefits the diagnosis of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We assessed differences in treatment between the screening and control arms of ERSPC Rotterdam and studied whether possible treatment differences could explain the positive study outcome. Materials and Methods In ERSPC Rotterdam men 55 to 74 years old were randomized to a screening arm of 21,210 and a control arm of 21,166. Treatment after diagnosis was at the discretion of the care provider chosen by the patient. Initial treatment was compared in 4 risk groups. The relation between prostate cancer incidence and prostate cancer mortality was assessed by risk group by correlating the incidence RR and the mortality RR. A direct relation would have supported a stage shift as the main cause of changes in prostate cancer mortality. Results Initial treatment differed between the arms in the low, intermediate and high risk groups but not in the metastatic group. The RRs of prostate cancer incidence and mortality per risk group were related 1:1 (regression line slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.30–1.74). Of changes in prostate cancer mortality 94% could be explained by changes in prostate cancer incidence. This made treatment differences unlikely as the reason for the observed decrease in prostate cancer mortality. Conclusions Differences in treatment between the ERSPC Rotterdam screening and control arms were unlikely to explain the differences in prostate cancer mortality. Results are instead consistent with a decrease in prostate cancer mortality as the result of a favorable stage through screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Evidence from randomized trials on the effects of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) on disease-specific mortality accumulates slowly with increasing follow-up. Objective: To assess data on PCa-specific mortality in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized controlled trial with randomization after signed, written informed consent (efficacy trial). In the period 1993–1999, a total of 42 376 men aged 54–74 yr were randomized to a screening arm (S-arm) (n = 21 210 with screening every 4 yr, applying a total prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level cut-off ≥3.0 ng/ml as biopsy indication) or a control arm (C-arm) (n = 21 166; no intervention). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Number of PCas detected per arm depicted by predefined time periods and prognostic groups. PCa-specific mortality analyses using Poisson regression in age group 55–74 yr at randomization and separately in the predefined age group of 55–69 yr. Results and limitations: After a median follow-up of 12.8 yr, 19 765 men (94.2%) were screened at least once and 2674 PCas were detected (of which 561 [21.0%] were interval PCas). In the C-arm, 1430 PCas were detected, resulting in an excess incidence of 59 PCas per 1000 men randomized (61 PCas per 1000 in age group 55–69 yr). Thirty-two percent of all men randomized have died. PCa-specific mortality relative-risk (RR) reductions of 20.0% overall (age: 55–74 yr; p = 0.042) and 31.6% (age: 55–69 yr; p = 0.004) were found. A 14.1% increase was found in men aged 70–74 yr (not statistically significant). Absolute PCa mortality was 1.8 per 1000 men randomized (2.6 per 1000 men randomized in age group 55–69 yr). The number needed to invite and number needed to manage were 565 and 33, respectively, for age group 55–74 yr, and 392 and 24, respectively, for age group 65–69 yr. Given the slow natural history of the disease, follow-up might be too short. Conclusions: Systematic PSA-based screening reduced PCa-specific mortality by 32% in the age range of 55–69 yr. The roughly twofold higher incidence in the S-arm underlines the importance of tools to better identify those men who would benefit from screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Previous studies have shown that a statistical model based on a panel of kallikrein markers in blood (total, free and intact PSA and kallikrein-related peptidase 2) can predict prostate cancer on biopsy., The current study explores the relationship between the above-mentioned panel and prostate volume, and whether this panel could be an alternative for clinical measures such as DRE and TRUS in predicting prostate cancer on biopsy., Objective To explore whether a panel of kallikrein markers in blood: total, free and intact prostate-specific antigen ( PSA) and kallikrein-related peptidase 2, could be used as a non-invasive alternative for predicting prostate cancer on biopsy in a screening setting., Subjects and Methods The study cohort comprised previously unscreened men who underwent sextant biopsy owing to elevated PSA (≥3 ng/mL) in two different centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam ( n = 2914) and Göteborg ( n = 740)., A statistical model, based on kallikrein markers, was compared with one based on established clinical factors for the prediction of biopsy outcome., Results The clinical tests were found to be no better than blood markers, with an area under the curve in favour of the blood measurements of 0.766 vs. 0.763 in Rotterdam and 0.809 vs. 0.774 in Göteborg., Adding digital rectal examination ( DRE) or DRE plus transrectal ultrasonography ( TRUS) volume to the markers improved discrimination, although the increases were small. Results were similar for predicting high-grade cancer., There was a strong correlation between the blood measurements and TRUS-estimated prostate volume ( Spearman's correlation 0.60 in Rotterdam and 0.57 in Göteborg)., Conclusions In previously unscreened men, each with indication for biopsy, a statistical model based on kallikrein levels was similar to a clinical model in predicting prostate cancer in a screening setting, outside the day-to-day clinical practice., Whether a clinical approach can be replaced by laboratory analyses or used in combination with decision models (nomograms) is a clinical judgment that may vary from clinician to clinician depending on how they weigh the different advantages and disadvantages (harms, costs, time, invasiveness) of both approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that assesses the impact of screening of excess mortality in men with prostate cancer (PC). It outlines the method of the study which observes a total of 141,578 men aged 55-69 who have undergone randomized to systematic screening or usual care in European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). It notes the result of the study which indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in ERSPC trial was not due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.

The article presents a study that examines the effectiveness of mortality evaluation on patients with prostate cancer. It describes the method of the study that uses estimation procedure in the expected number of deaths related to prostate cancer diagnoses. It outlines the findings of the study which indicates that attendees have lower all-cause mortality rate and higher probability of prostate cancer compared to non-attendees.

Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series) Level of Evidence 2a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients. OBJECTIVES To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance., To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC., PATIENTS AND METHODS Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011., The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy., Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤20 mm cancer tissue, ≥40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise., After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety., RESULTS Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%)., The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS ( n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage ( n= 19)., Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply., CONCLUSIONS AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead., Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Type - Prognosis (case control) Level of Evidence 3a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Treatment of advanced PC might put patients at an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Recent studies have suggested that the excess mortality is lower among men who were diagnosed with screen detected PC in comparison to men with clinically diagnosed PC, possibly due to the use of medications for cardiovascular disease and the change to a healthier lifestyle of men with a screen detected PC. Men with clinically diagnosed PC have an increased risk of death unrelated to PC itself, i.e., the excess mortality is based on an increased risk of dying from other neoplasm and diseases of the circulatory or respiratory system. OBJECTIVE To assess the cause-specific mortality unrelated to prostate cancer (PC) itself in patients with screen- and clinically diagnosed PC., PATIENTS AND METHODS The present study was conducted among participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer., Based on consensus of the causes of death committee (CODC), all patients who died from PC were excluded., In the intervention arm, cases were patients with a screen-detected PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001., These cases were matched to two controls in whom no cancer was found after biopsy, and two controls in whom no cancer was suspected after screening. In the control arm, cases were patients with clinically diagnosed PC, aged 55-74 years, between 1993 and 2001. These cases were matched to four controls without PC. Matching was done with respect to date of birth, screening and/or diagnosis. Men were followed up to 31 December 2007., RESULTS No statistically significant difference in overall mortality between cases and controls in the intervention arm was observed: relative risk (RR) 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.65; P = 0.102) and RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.86-1.47; P = 0.381)., In the control arm, the overall mortality was statistically significantly higher in cases relative to controls: RR 1.43 (95% CI 1.03-2.00; P = 0.033)., This difference was because of an increased risk of dying from neoplasms and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system among cases: RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.12-2.29; P = 0.009)., The present study was limited by the relatively small sample size., CONCLUSIONS Increased mortality unrelated to PC itself was observed in men with clinically diagnosed PC, but not in screen-detected PC., The excess mortality in men with clinically diagnosed PC seems to be as a result of a significantly increased risk of dying from neoplasm and disease of the circulatory or respiratory system., Results have to be studied more thoroughly in further clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sophisticated reading of the randomized trial evidence suggests that, although screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce cancer-specific mortality, it does so at considerable cost in terms of the number of men who need to be screened, biopsied, and treated to prevent one death. The challenge is to design screening programs that maximize benefits (reducing prostate cancer mortality) and minimize costs (overtreatment). Recent research has suggested that this can be achieved by risk-stratifying screening and biopsy; increasing reliance on active surveillance for low-risk cancer; restricting radical prostatectomy to high-volume surgeons; and using appropriately high-dose radiotherapy. In current U.S. practice, however, many men who are screened are unlikely to benefit, most men found to have low-risk cancers are referred for unnecessary curative treatment, and much treatment is given at low-volume centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The serum PSA test still is the most important biomarker for the detection and follow-up of prostate cancer. PSA-based screening can reduce disease specific mortality but coinciding unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis warrant further research for more specific biomarkers. Numerous studies of both serum and urine-based prostate cancer biomarker candidates have been presented the last ten years. However, biomarkers for identifying the most aggressive subsets of this malignancy are still missing. Being non-invasive, urine-based tests might be suitable for both clinical and (mass) screening purposes, but also for prediction and to gain prognostic information. Protein-based, DNA-based and RNA-based urine biomarkers have been developed and tested. Protein markers in urine. Data on protein-based urine biomarkers (i.e. Annexin A3, matrix metalloproteinases and the urinary: serum PSA ratio) show up to now contradictory results and further studies are warranted to be able to assess their clinical value in which the cost aspect should not be overlooked. DNA markers in urine. Studies on DNA-based urine biomarkers focus on hypermethylation of gene panels with GSTP1 hypermethylation being the most promising individual marker. Larger prospective clinical studies of single markers and gene panels are however needed to validate their clinical utility. RNA markers in urine. RNA-based urine biomarkers are by far the most developed. The PCA3 test, the TMPRSS2 -- ERG fusion gene, transcript expression levels of GOLPH2, SPINK1 and their combination have been subject of many studies showing encouraging results. Conclusion. Up to now urine-based biomarkers represent a promising alternative or addition to serum-based biomarkers. Prospective studies in a multivariate setting, including larger sample sizes and avoiding attribution bias caused by preselection on the basis of serum PSA are however required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The identification of clinically insignificant prostate cancer could help avoid overtreatment. Current criteria for insignificant prostate cancer use a tumor volume threshold of less than 0.5 ml for the index tumor. In this study we reassess this tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using an independent data set. Materials and Methods: The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was calculated by modeling lifetime risk estimates of prostate cancer diagnosis in screened and nonscreened participants in a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. Using lifetime risk estimates 50.8% of screen detected prostate cancer was calculated to be clinically insignificant and the 49.2% largest tumor volume of 325 prostatectomy specimens was used to determine the threshold tumor volume for insignificant prostate cancer. Because stage and grade represent the strongest determinants of cancer aggressiveness, we also calculated the tumor volume threshold for insignificant cancer after the selection of patients with organ confined prostate cancer without Gleason pattern 4/5. The analyses were performed for total tumor volume and for index tumor volume. Results: The minimum threshold tumor volume of the index tumor and total tumor was 0.55 and 0.70 ml, respectively. After accounting for tumor stage and grade we obtained a threshold volume for the index tumor and total tumor of 1.3 and 2.5 ml, respectively. Conclusions: We confirmed the original value of the index tumor volume threshold of 0.5 ml for insignificant prostate cancer, and we demonstrated that clinically insignificant prostate cancer may include index Gleason score 6, pT2 tumors with volumes up to at least 1.3 ml. These results suggest a reconsideration of current methods and nomograms used for pretreatment risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is considered to be prostate cancer (PCa) specific and highly overexpressed in cancer. Therefore a high PCA3 score should result in a high positive predictive value (PPV) and specificity for a positive biopsy. Objective: Our aim was to reevaluate, retest PCA3, and rebiopsy men with an initial PCA3 ≥100 and no PCa detected and compare the results with a random cohort of men with an initial PCA3<100. Design, setting, and participants: We invited men 63–75 yr of age with a PCA3 ≥100 for retesting and a control group with an initial PCA3<100 to participate in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, section Rotterdam. Interventions: Blood and urine sampling were used to determine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PCA3. Prostate biopsies were performed if the PSA was ≥2.5ng/ml and/or the PCA3 score was ≥35. Measurements: We correlated the initial and reevaluated PCA3 scores. Our assessment of the PPV after rebiopsy was based on the newly determined PCA3 score. Results and limitations: After a mean study period of 19 mo, more cases of PCa were detected in rebiopsied men with initial PCA3 scores ≥100 than in the controls with PCA3 scores <100 (30.0% vs 18.8%). Combining initial and rebiopsy data resulted in a PPV of 52.2% in men with PCA3 ≥100. Over time, changes in PSA and PCA3 levels were quite different. Conclusions: In spite of our rescreened population, PPV and specificity were comparable with all reported studies of men with PCA3 scores ≥100. These findings do not explain why these PCA3 scores were excessively high in spite of the absence of biopsy-detectable PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To study the difference between the disease-specific and excess mortality rate in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer section Rotterdam. Methods A total of 42,376 men were randomized to systematic screening or usual care. The excess number of deaths was defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in the prostate cancer (PC) patients and the expected number of deaths up to 31 December 2006. The expected number was derived from mortality of all study participants before a possible diagnosis with PC. The disease-specific mortality rate was based on the number of men who died from PC. The excess mortality rate based on the arm-specific excess number of deaths and the disease-specific mortality rate were compared between the two study arms. Results The overall mortality rate was not significantly different between the intervention and the control arms of the study: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.98-1.07). The disease-specific mortality rate was 0.42 men per 1000 person-years in the intervention and 0.48 men per 1000 person-years in the control arm: RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.17). The excess mortality rate was 0.40 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 0.61 men per 1000 person-years in the control arm, and the RR for excess mortality was 0.66 (95% CI 0.39-1.13). Conclusions In contrast to the disease-specific mortality rates an increased difference in the excess mortality rates was observed between the two arms. This observation may be due to a systematic underestimation of the disease-specific deaths, and/or an additional disease-related mortality that is measured by an excess mortality analysis but not by a disease-specific mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The performance characteristics of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a diagnostic test for prostate cancer (PCa) are poor. The performance of the PCa antigen 3 (PCA3) gene as a primary diagnostic is unknown. Objective: Assess the value of PCA3 as a first-line diagnostic test. Design, setting and participants: Participants included men aged 63–75 who were invited for rescreening in the period from September 2007 to February 2009 within the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam section. Interventions: Lateral sextant biopsies were performed if the serum PSA value was ≥3.0ng/ml and/or the PCA3 score was ≥10. Measurements: Measurements included distribution and correlation of PSA value and PCA3 score and their relation to the number of cases and the characteristics of PCa detected. Additional value of PCA3 was included in men with previous negative biopsy and/or PSA <3.0ng/ml. Results and limitations: In 721 men, all biopsied, 122 PCa cases (16.9%) were detected. Correlation between PSA and PCA3 is poor (Spearman rank correlation: ρ=0.14; p <0.0001). A PSA ≥3.0ng/ml misses 64.7% of the total PCa that can be detected with the sextant biopsy technique and 57.9% of serious PCa (T2a or higher and/or Gleason grade ≥4, n =19), and 68.2% of biopsies could have been avoided; the respective data for PCA3 ≥35 are 32%, 26.3%, and 51.7%. Performance of PCA3 in men with low PSA (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.63) and/or previous negative biopsy (AUC: 0.68) is unclear but has limited reliability due to small numbers. Conclusions: PCA3 as a first-line screening test shows improvement of the performance characteristics and identification of serious disease compared with PSA in this prescreened population. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article focuses on the dispute over prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trials. Several elements have been enumerated that are said to contribute to this controversy including oppositeness between the impacts of the studies and the absence of international consensus on regular screening. It is said that the extensive use of PSA trial contributed to the decrease in the US PCa mortality rate in 1990s.

Purpose: Prostate specific antigen velocity has been proposed as a marker to aid in prostate cancer detection. We determined whether prostate specific antigen velocity could predict repeat biopsy results in men with persistently increased prostate specific antigen after initial negative biopsy. Materials and Methods: We identified 1,837 men who participated in the Göteborg or Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Screening study of Prostate Cancer and who underwent 1 or more subsequent prostate biopsies after an initial negative finding. We evaluated whether prostate specific antigen velocity improved predictive accuracy beyond that of prostate specific antigen alone. Results: Of the 2,579 repeat biopsies 363 (14%) were positive for prostate cancer, of which 44 (1.7%) were high grade (Gleason score 7 or greater). Prostate specific antigen velocity was statistically associated with cancer risk but had low predictive accuracy (AUC 0.55, p <0.001). There was some evidence that prostate specific antigen velocity improved AUC compared to prostate specific antigen for high grade cancer. However, the small increase in risk associated with high prostate specific antigen velocity (from 1.7% to 2.8% as velocity increased from 0 to 1 ng/ml per year) had questionable clinical relevance. Conclusions: Men with prior negative biopsy are at lower risk for prostate cancer at subsequent biopsies with high grade disease particularly rare. We found little evidence to support prostate specific antigen velocity to aid in decisions about repeat biopsy for prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which compares the biochemical and histopathological effects of men with screen-detected low-risk prostate cancer. It employs men who had been given radical prostatectomy (RP) and were diagnosed with low- risk prostate cancer. It shows that there are no major differences observed in adverse average effects after RP and those who had been given RP after the first period of expectant management, for minor, well-differentiated, limited prostate cancer.

Study Type – Survey (prospective cohort) Level of Evidence 1b OBJECTIVE To investigate the levels of knowledge of prostate cancer and the perception of active surveillance (AS) in men on AS, as AS for early prostate cancer instead of radical treatment might partly solve the over-treatment dilemma in this disease, but might be experienced as a complex and contradictory strategy by patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 150 Dutch men recently diagnosed with early prostate cancer participating in a prospective protocol-based AS programme (PRIAS study) received questionnaires, including a 15-item measure on their general knowledge of prostate cancer, and open-ended questions on the most important disadvantages and advantages of AS, and on the specific perception of AS. We assessed knowledge scores and explored potentially associated factors, the stated (dis)advantages and specific perceptions. RESULTS The questionnaire response rate was 86% (129/150). Participants provided correct answers to a median (interquartile range) of 13 (12–14) of 15 (87%) knowledge items. Younger and higher educated men had higher knowledge scores. In line with a priori hypotheses, the most frequently reported advantage and disadvantage of AS were the delay of side-effects and the risk of disease progression, respectively. Specific negative experiences included the feeling of losing control over treatment decisions, distress at follow-up visits, and the desire for a more active participation in disease management. No conceptually wrong understandings or expectations of AS were identified. CONCLUSIONS We found adequate knowledge of prostate cancer levels and realistic perceptions of the AS strategy in patients with early prostate cancer and on AS. These findings suggest adequate counselling by the physician or patient self-education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Screening for prostate cancer (PC) is controversial due to uncertainties about its efficiency. Objective: We aimed to develop strategies to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while still detecting most clinically important PC cases. Design, setting, and participants: In 1850 men initially screened and biopsied (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value ≥3.0 ng/ml) in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, we calculated both the probability of having a positive lateralized sextant biopsy [P(biop+)] and the probability of having an indolent cancer [P(ind)] if PC was detected at biopsy (n =541). Analyses of repeat screening included 225 cancers in 1201 men. Interventions: The P(biop+) was based on applying a logistic regression model that included ultrasound volume, digital rectal exam, and transrectal ultrasound in addition to the PSA value. The P(ind) was based on a recently validated nomogram. Measurements and limitations: At initial screening the fraction of positive biopsies was 29% (541 of 1850). Applying an additional P(biop+) cut-off of 12.5% implied that 613 of the 1850 men (33%) would not have been biopsied. This would result in an increase in the positive predictive value (PPV) to 38% (468 of 1237). At repeat screening a similar P(biop+) cut-off would result in an increase in the PPV from 19% (225 of 1201) to 25% (188 of 760). Thirteen percent of PC cases would not have been diagnosed, of which 70% (initial screening) and 81% (repeat screening) could be considered as potentially indolent. None of the deadly PC cases would have been missed. A PSA cut-off of ≥4.0 ng/ml resulted in similar numbers of biopsied cases saved but considerably higher numbers of missed diagnoses. Conclusions: An individualized screening algorithm using other available prebiopsy information in addition to PSA level can result in a considerable reduction of unnecessary biopsies. Very few important PC cases, for which diagnosis at a subsequent screening visit might be too late for treatment with curative intent, would be missed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been shown to reduce prostate specific mortality by 20% in an intention to screen (ITS) analysis in a randomised trial (European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]). This effect may be diluted by nonattendance in men randomised to the screening arm and contamination in men randomised to the control arm. Objective: To assess the magnitude of the PCa-specific mortality reduction after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination. Design, setting, and participants: We analysed the occurrence of PCa deaths during an average follow-up of 9 yr in 162 243 men 55–69 yr of age randomised in seven participating centres of the ERSPC. Centres were also grouped according to the type of randomisation (ie, before or after informed written consent). Intervention: Nonattendance was defined as nonattending the initial screening round in ERSPC. The estimate of contamination was based on PSA use in controls in ERSPC Rotterdam. Measurements: Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared between an ITS analysis and analyses adjusting for nonattendance and contamination using a statistical method developed for this purpose. Results and limitations: In the ITS analysis, the RR of PCa death in men allocated to the intervention arm relative to the control arm was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68–0.96). Adjustment for nonattendance resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58–0.93), and additional adjustment for contamination using two different estimates led to estimated reductions of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.92) to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55–0.93), respectively. Contamination data were obtained through extrapolation of single-centre data. No heterogeneity was found between the groups of centres. Conclusions: PSA screening reduces the risk of dying of PCa by up to 31% in men actually screened. This benefit should be weighed against a degree of overdiagnosis and overtreatment inherent in PCa screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The value of prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) in screening for prostate cancer (PCa) and especially for clinically significant PCa is unclear. Objective: To assess the value of PSAV in screening for PCa. Specifically, the role of PSAV in lowering the number of unnecessary biopsies and reducing the detection rate of indolent PCa was evaluated. Design, Setting, and Participants: All men included in the study cohort were participants in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam section. Intervention: During the first and second screening round, a PSA test was performed on 2217 men, and all underwent a biopsy during the second screening round 4 yr later. Measurements: PSAV was calculated and biopsy outcome was classified as benign, possibly indolent PCa, or clinically significant PCa. Results and Limitations: A total of 441 cases of PCa were detected, 333 were classified as clinically significant and 108 as possibly indolent. The use of PSAV cut-offs reduced the number of biopsies but led to important numbers of missed (indolent and significant) PCa. PSAV was predictive for PCa (OR: 1.28, p <0.001) and specifically for significant PCa (OR: 1.46, p <0.001) in univariate analyses. However, multivariate analyses using age, PSA, prostate volume, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography outcome, and previous biopsy (yes/no) showed that PSAV was not an independent predictor of PCa (OR: 1.01, p =0.91) or significant PCa (OR: 0.87, p =0.30). Conclusions: The use of PSAV as a biopsy indicator would miss a large number of clinically significant PCa cases with increasing PSAV cut-offs. In this study, PSAV was not an independent predictor of a positive biopsy in general or significant PCa on biopsy. Therefore, PSAV does not improve the ERSPC screening algorithm. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Evidence indicates that an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) is a risk factor for high-grade prostate cancer (PC). Objective: To determine whether men with an initially suspicious DRE, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥3.0ng/ml, and a benign prostate biopsy are at higher risk for significant PC at rescreening than men with an initially normal DRE, and whether an adaptation of the rescreening interval is warranted for this group. Design, Setting, and Participants: Within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam, 2218 men underwent biopsy of the prostate (from 1993 to 2000) with a benign result at initial screening. The serum PSA was determined every 4 yr. A PSA level of ≥3.0ng/ml prompted a DRE and a lateralised sextant biopsy. Measurements: Number and characteristics of PCs found at repeat screenings and as interval cancers (ICs) were compared between men with or without a suspicious DRE result at initial screening. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate if an initially suspicious DRE was a significant predictor for detecting cancer at consecutive screenings. Results and Limitations: After 4 yr, the total number of PCs detected in men with and without an initially suspicious DRE was, respectively, 27 (6%) versus 103 (6%) (p =0.99). After 8 yr these numbers increased, respectively, to,45 (10%) versus 167 (10%) (p =0.88). The proportion of clinically significant PCs was 2% and 3%, respectively, for the group with initially normal and abnormal DRE after 8 yr. Having a suspicious DRE result at initial screening was not a significant predictor for detecting PC after 4 yr [odds ratio (OR)=1.15, p =0.59) or 8 yr (OR=1.41, p =0.43)]. A limitation of this study is the relatively short follow-up of 8 yr. Conclusions: During a follow-up of 8 yr after initial cancer-negative biopsy, an initially suspicious DRE did not influence the chance for detection of cancer or significant cancer at later screens. An adaptation of the rescreening interval on the basis of the initial DRE-outcome is not warranted in future population-based screening for prostate cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

OBJECTIVE To assess the potential problem that different tools for predicting a positive outcome of prostate biopsy can produce divergent outcomes in the same man, by comparing the risk calculators based on the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS In the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range of 0.2–30.0 ng/mL, the prediction curves of ‘virtual’ standard study participants were evaluated using both prediction tools. The effects of prostate volume, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), previous negative biopsy, family history, race, and age were also assessed. RESULTS Important differences in underlying study design and populations between the PCPT and ERSPC cause an essential discrepancy between the risk calculators. In the PCPT there were few biopsies in the higher PSA ranges, and in the ERSPC in the lower PSA ranges. Both risk indicators have incorporated some variables that are not used in the other, because they were insignificant in multivariate analysis. TRUS and especially prostate volume (not available in the PCPT) have a considerably larger effect on predictions in comparable PSA ranges than race, age, family history of prostate cancer, and previous negative biopsy (indicators that were excluded in ERSPC). CONCLUSIONS Before using risk calculators users must consider the properties of the underlying populations and what are the included or unavailable risk factors, and compare these to the patient. When these prerequisites are disregarded, dissimilarities will result in grossly inaccurate predictions for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Currently, several prostate cancer rescreening intervals are in use in different countries worldwide, varying from 1 to 4 years. Recently, it has been proposed to determine the rescreening interval relative to the initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and possibly to extend the rescreening interval up to 5 years. Methods: We evaluated the screening results of two subsequent screening visits (4-year interval) of 1703 men aged 55 to 65 years with an initial PSA level of 1.0 ng/mL or less within a randomized screening trial. We assessed the PSA values, numbers of men biopsied (biopsy indication: PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater), and numbers of cancers detected at the second and third screening visits. Results: A total of 1327 men (79.3%) attended the second screening visit. Of these men, 13 (0.98%) had a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater, and three cancers were detected (cancer detection rate 0.23%). At the third screening visit, 1017 men (76.8%) attended, 34 men (3.3%) had a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or greater, and five cancers were detected (cancer detection rate 0.49%). The 2344 subsequent PSA determinations in an 8-year period after the initial screening resulted in eight cancers detected, for an overall cancer detection rate of 0.47%. Through linkage of all men with the cancer registry, no additional cancers were found. Conclusions: A strategy of PSA screening every 8 years for men with a PSA level of 1.0 ng/mL or less will lead to a considerable decrease in the number of screening visits (with the associated costs and stress), with a minimal risk of missing aggressive cancer at a curable stage. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article focuses on the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients for possible prostate cancer which was traced to the use of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). This was the result of clinical trials under the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which failed to exclude the presence of aggressive type of prostate cancer. The use of a dichotomized prognosticators of the criteria in a study by Williams et al. is considered more effective.

Objectives Patients and Methods Results Conclusion To prospectively evaluate how the Prostate Health Index (PHI) impacts on clinical decision in a real‐life setting for men with a prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level between 4 and 10 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination.Since 2016, the PHI has been available at no cost to eligible men in all Hong Kong public hospitals. All eligible patients who received PHI testing in all public Urology units (n = 16) in Hong Kong between May 2016 and August 2017 were prospectively included and followed up. All included men had a PHI test, with its result and implications explained; the subsequent follow‐up plan was then decided via shared decision‐making with urologists. Patients were followed up for 2 years, with outcomes including prostate biopsy rates and biopsy findings analysed in relation to the initial PHI measurements.A total of 2828 patients were followed up for 2 years. The majority (82%) had PHI results in the lower risk range (score <35). Knowing the PHI findings, 83% of the patients with elevated PSA decided not to undergo biopsy. In all, 11% and 45% opted for biopsy in the PHI score <35 and ≥35 groups, respectively. The initial detection rate of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) ≥2 cancer was higher in the PHI score ≥35 group (23%) than in the PHI score <35 group (7.9%). Amongst patients with no initial positive biopsy findings, the subsequent positive biopsy rate for ISUP GG ≥2 cancer was higher in the PHI score ≥35 group (34%) than the PHI score <35 group (13%) with a median follow‐up of 2.4 years.In a real‐life setting, with the PHI incorporated into the routine clinical pathway, 83% of the patients with elevated PSA level decided not to undergo prostate biopsy. The PHI pathway also improved the high‐grade prostate cancer detection rate when compared to PSA‐driven strategies. Higher baseline PHI predicted subsequent biopsy outcome at 2 years. The PHI can serve as a tool to individualise biopsy decisions and frequency of follow‐up visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review is presented of the article "Screening for Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials" by M. Djulbegovic et al., which appeared in a 2010 issue of the "British Medical Journal".

The author reflects on the screening and risk predictions for prostate cancer, based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening at large. She states recommendations to stop using PSA is due to overusage of the testing along with random biopsy which resulted in overtreatment and over-diagnosis. An overview of the over usage of the PSA approach is presented showing prostate cancer risk calculator data outperforming PSA data.

The author comments on a study by A. L. Walsh & others regarding early detection of prostate cancer by digital rectal examination (DRE), published in a 2014 issue of the journal "British Journal of General Practice." He mentions that the study suggests doctors to always perform DRE as part of their assessment for the early detection of prostate cancer. Also he recommends that DRE should also include an assessment of prostate volume.

Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening remains a controversial topic. Up to now, there is worldwide consensus on the statement that the harms of population-based screening, mainly as a result of overdiagnosis (the detection of clinically insignificant tumors that would have never caused any symptoms), outweigh the benefits. However, worldwide opportunistic screening takes place on a wide scale. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer showed a reduction in prostate cancer mortality through prostate-specific antigen based-screening. These population-based data need to be individualized in order to avoid screening in those who cannot benefit and start screening in those who will. For now, lacking a more optimal screening approach, screening should only be started after the process of shared decision-making. The focus of future research is the reduction of unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis by further research to better biomarkers and the value of the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, potentially combined in already existing prostate-specific antigen-based multivariate risk prediction models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer (PCa) mortality and a 1.6-fold increase in PCa incidence with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening (at 13 yr of follow-up). We evaluated PCa incidence by risk category at diagnosis across the study arms to assess the potential impact on PCa mortality. Design, setting, and participants Information on arm, centre, T and M stage, Gleason score, serum PSA at diagnosis, age at randomisation, follow-up time, and vital status were extracted from the ERSPC database. Four risk categories at diagnosis were defined: 1, low; 2, intermediate; 3, high; 4, metastatic disease. PSA (≤100 or >100 ng/ml) was used as the indicator of metastasis. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for screening versus control arm by risk category at diagnosis and follow-up time were calculated using Poisson regression analysis for seven centres. Follow-up was truncated at 13 yr. Missing data were imputed using chained equations. The analyses were carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. Results and limitations In the screening arm, 7408 PCa cases were diagnosed and 6107 in the control arm. The proportion of missing stage, Gleason score, or PSA value was comparable in the two arms (8% vs 10%), but differed among centres. The IRRs were elevated in the screening arm for the low-risk (IRR: 2.14; 95% CI, 2.03–2.25) and intermediate-risk (IRR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16–1.34) categories at diagnosis, equal to unity for the high-risk category at diagnosis (IRR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89–1.13), and reduced for metastatic disease at diagnosis (IRR: 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52–0.70). The IRR of metastatic disease had temporal pattern similar to mortality, shifted forwards an average of almost 3 yr, although the mortality reduction was smaller. Conclusions The results confirm a reduction in metastatic disease at diagnosis in the screening arm, preceding mortality reduction by almost 3 yr. Patient summary The findings of this study indicate that the decrease in metastatic disease at diagnosis is the major determinant of the prostate cancer mortality reduction in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We aimed to compare nonlinear modeling methods for handling continuous predictors for reproducibility and transportability of prediction models. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed four cohorts of previously unscreened men who underwent prostate biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer. Continuous predictors of prostate cancer included prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume. The logistic regression models included linear terms, logarithmic terms, fractional polynomials of degree one or two (FP1 and FP2), or restricted cubic splines (RCS) with three or five knots (RCS3 and RCS5). The resulting models were internally validated by bootstrap resampling and externally validated in the cohorts not used at model development. Performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the calibration component of the Brier score (CAL). Results: At internal validation models with FP2 or RCS5 showed slightly better performance than the other models (typically 0.004 difference in AUC and 0.001 in CAL). At external validation models containing logarithms, FP1, or RCS3 showed better performance (differences 0.01 and 0.002). Conclusion: Flexible nonlinear modeling methods led to better model performance at internal validation. However, when application of the model is intended across a wide range of settings, less flexible functions may be more appropriate to maximize external validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]