Search

Background: Previous research quantified the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening on quality-adjusted life years using 11-yr follow-up data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) extrapolated by the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN). ERSPC data now matured to 21 yr of follow-up., Objective: To provide an overview of the effect of PSA-based screening on tumour characteristics and PCa treatment using long-term, detailed, empirical ERSPC data., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men were included from the ERSPC Rotterdam who were randomised to a PSA-based screening (S) or control (C) arm., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We assessed the effects of PSA-based screening on the number of PCa diagnoses, tumour characteristics, treatments, and cumulative incidence of disease progression. We also evaluated the changes in tumour characteristics and treatments over time for both study arms., Results and Limitations: Among PCa patients in the S-arm, fewer patients were diagnosed with advanced tumour stages (T3/T4: 12% vs 23%; relative risk [RR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.57), less disease progression was observed, and less secondary treatment (30% vs 48%; RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.66; p < 0.001) and less palliative treatment were needed (21% vs 55%; RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.35-0.42) than among those in the C-arm. This was at the cost of overdiagnosis and increased local treatments (eg, radical prostatectomy: 32% vs 14%; RR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.92-2.48). Over time, the number of local treatments decreased, whereas expectant management strategies increased. The RRs of treatments were slightly different from those of the MISCAN., Conclusions: After 21 yr of follow-up, empirical data of the ERSPC showed that PSA-based screening reduces advanced PCa stages, disease progression, and extensive treatments at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Our data showed reduced local treatments and increased expectant management strategies over time., Patient Summary: Prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces the number of invasive prostate cancer treatments needed, however, at the cost of more overdiagnosis and probably more overtreatment. Limiting these costs remains crucial to benefit optimally from prostate cancer screening., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced., (© 2024 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Objectives: To compare the performance of currently available biopsy decision support tools incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively included men who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent targeted and/or systematic prostate biopsies in two large European centres. Available decision support tools were identified by a PubMed search. Performance was assessed by calibration, discrimination, decision curve analysis (DCA) and numbers of biopsies avoided vs csPCa cases missed, before and after recalibration, at risk thresholds of 5%-20%., Results: A total of 940 men were included, 507 (54%) had csPCa. The median (interquartile range) age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and PSA density (PSAD) were 68 (63-72) years, 9 (7-15) ng/mL, and 0.20 (0.13-0.32) ng/mL 2 , respectively. In all, 18 multivariable risk calculators (MRI-RCs) and dichotomous biopsy decision strategies based on MRI findings and PSAD thresholds were assessed. The Van Leeuwen model and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) had the best discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86) of the MRI-RCs that could be assessed in the whole cohort. DCA showed the highest clinical utility for the Van Leeuwen model, followed by the RPCRC. At the 10% threshold the Van Leeuwen model would avoid 22% of biopsies, missing 1.8% of csPCa, whilst the RPCRC would avoid 20% of biopsies, missing 2.6% of csPCas. These multivariable models outperformed all dichotomous decision strategies based only on MRI-findings and PSAD., Conclusions: Even in this high-risk cohort, biopsy decision support tools would avoid many prostate biopsies, whilst missing very few csPCa cases. The Van Leeuwen model had the highest clinical utility, followed by the RPCRC. These multivariable MRI-RCs outperformed and should be favoured over decision strategies based only on MRI and PSAD., (© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age., Objective: To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr)., Design, Setting, and Participants: We evaluated 25589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr., Results and Limitations: The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice., Conclusions: In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening., Patient Summary: In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Considering the long natural history of prostate cancer (PCa), long-term results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for PCa (ERSPC) are crucial., Objective: To provide an update on the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening on PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), metastatic disease, and overdiagnosis in the Dutch arm of the ERSPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between 1993 and 2000, a total of 42376 men, aged 55-74 yr, were randomised to a screening or a control arm. The main analysis was performed with men aged 55-69 yr (n = 34831). Men in the screening arm were offered PSA-based screening with an interval of 4 yr., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Intention-to-screen analyses with Poisson regression were used to calculate rate ratios (RRs) of PCSM and metastatic PCa., Results and Limitations: After a median follow-up of 21 yr, the RR of PCSM was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.88) favouring screening. The numbers of men needed to invite (NNI) and needed to diagnose (NND) to prevent one PCa death were 246 and 14, respectively. For metastatic PCa, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.78) favouring screening. The NNI and NND to prevent one metastasis were 121 and 7, respectively. No statistical difference in PCSM (RR of 1.18 [95% CI: 0.87-1.62]) was observed in men aged ≥70 yr at the time of randomisation. In the screening arm, higher rates of PCSM and metastatic disease were observed in men who were screened only once and in a selected group of men above the screening age cut-off of 74 yr., Conclusions: The current analysis illustrates that with a follow-up of 21 yr, both absolute metastasis and mortality reduction continue to increase, resulting in a more favourable harm-benefit ratio than demonstrated previously. These data do not support starting screening at the age of 70-74 yr and show that repeated screening is essential., Patient Summary: Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening reduces metastasis and mortality. Longer follow-up shows fewer invitations and diagnoses needed to prevent one death, a positive note towards the issue of overdiagnosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of multivariable risk stratification for early prostate cancer (PCa) detection in a primary healthcare diagnostic facility with regard to its effects on the referral rate and subsequent PCa diagnoses compared to a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/mL as the current referral indicator., Patients and Methods: In 2014, the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute and the primary healthcare diagnostic facility STAR-SHL (located in Rotterdam city centre) initiated this observational study, in which general practitioners (GPs) could refer men who wished to undergo PCa screening to STAR-SHL for consultation by specially trained personnel. Referral recommendations to secondary healthcare were based on the outcome of application of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) and were compared to the current Dutch GPs' PSA referral threshold of 3.0 ng/mL. For data collection on PCa diagnoses, the study cohort was linked to the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (PALGA)., Results: Between January 2014 and February 2021, 507 men were referred for consultation and in 495 men prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was tested. The median (interquartile range) follow-up from consultation to PALGA linkage was 43 (25-65) months. In total, 279 men (56%) had a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/mL, of whom 68% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 63-74) were considered at low risk according to the RPCRC. Within 1 year after consultation, one of these men (0.52%; 95% CI 0.092-2.9) was diagnosed with clinically significant (cs)PCa (i.e., International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2). Thereafter, another four (2.1%; 95% CI 0.82-5.3) low-risk men were diagnosed with csPCa. Of the high-risk men who were biopsied within 1 year after consultation (n = 61), 77% (95% CI 65-86) were diagnosed with PCa and 49% (95% CI 37-61) with csPCa., Conclusion: In a primary healthcare diagnostic facility, the RPCRC could reduce up to 68% of referrals to secondary healthcare, as compared to a PSA referral threshold of 3.0 ng/mL. Deploying the RPCRC in this setting resulted in a high csPCa detection rate in those men biopsied. This strategy can be considered safe since the observational data showed low proportions of csPCa among men at low risk., (© 2022 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support., Objective: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members., Results and Limitations: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons., Conclusions: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer., Patient Summary: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The risk on biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is usually estimated using PSA and pathological stage and grading including the presence of positive surgical margins (PSM). Objective was to investigate whether the presence of cribriform growth in the primary tumor, Grade Group (GG) at the PSM, and length of the PSM have added value in the prognostication. We analyzed data of 835 patients initially treated with RP between 2000 and 2017. Cox regression models were developed to compare the baseline model (PSA, pT-stage, pN-stage, GG at RP, and presence of PSM) with an extended model (adding the presence of cribriform growth, length and GG at the PSM) using the likelihood ratio test. Discrimination was assessed at internal validation by the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) at 3- and 5-year. A total of 224 men experienced BCR. Median follow-up for men without BCR was 50.4 months (interquartile range, IQR 11.9-95.5). The extended model had a significant better fit, χ 2 (4) = 31.0, p < 0.001 than the baseline model. The AUC of the 3- and 5-year extended model was 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.88) compared to 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) for the baseline model. Importantly, the presence of cribriform growth in the primary tumor, and GG ≥ 2 at PSM were associated with a higher risk on BCR. In conclusion, the addition of pathological variables improved the prediction of the risk on BCR after RP slightly. However, the clinical implications of this model are important., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

International guidelines recommend to inform men about the benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen (PSA) based early detection of prostate cancer. This study investigates the influence of a transactional decision aid (DA) or cost compensation (CC) for a PSA test on the decisional behaviour of men. Prospective, cluster-randomised trial to compare two interventions in a 2 × 2 factorial design: DA versus counselling as usual, and CC versus noCC for PSA-testing. 90 cluster-randomised physicians in the administrative district of Muenster, Germany recruited 962 participants aged 55-69 yrs. in 2018. Primary endpoint: the influence of the DA and CC on the decisional conflict. Secondary endpoints: factors which altered the involvement of the men regarding their decision to take a PSA-test. The primary endpoint was analysed by a multivariate regression model. The choice to take the PSA test was increased by CC and reduced by the DA, the latter also reduced PSA uptake in men who were offered CC. The DA led to an increase of the median knowledge about early detection, changed willingness to perform a PSA test without increasing the level of shared decision, giving participants a stronger feeling of having made the decision by themselves. The DA did not alter the decisional conflict, as it was very low in all study groups. DA reduced and CC increased the PSA uptake. The DA seemed to have a greater impact on the participants than CC, as it led to fewer PSA tests even if CC was granted.Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00007687). Registered: 06/05/2015. https://www.drks.de/drks&#95;web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL&#95;ID=DRKS00007687 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

This review discusses evidence for population-based screening with contemporary screening tools. In Europe, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to a relative reduction of prostate cancer (PCa) mortality, but also to a substantial amount of overdiagnosis and unnecessarily biopsies. Risk stratification based on a single variable (a clinical variable or based on the presence of a lesion on prostate imaging) or based on multivariable approaches can aid in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis by selecting men who can benefit from further clinical assessment. Multivariable approaches include clinical variables, and biomarkers, often combined in risk calculators or nomograms. These risk calculators can also incorporate the result of MRI imaging. In general, as compared to a purely PSA based approach, the combination of relevant prebiopsy information results in superior selection of men at higher risk of harboring clinically significant prostate cancer. Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the superiority of these multivariable risk-based approaches since head-to-head comparisons are virtually lacking. Recently initiated large population-based screening studies in Finland, Germany and Sweden, incorporating various multivariable risk stratification approaches will hopefully give more insight in whether the harm-benefit ratio can be improved, that is, maintain (or improving) the ability to reduce metastatic disease and prostate cancer mortality while reducing harm caused by unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis including related overtreatment., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

This study aimed to estimate the rates of biopsy undersampling and progression for four prostate cancer (PCa) active surveillance (AS) cohorts within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium. We used a hidden Markov model (HMM) to estimate factors that define PCa dynamics for men on AS including biopsy under-sampling and progression that are implied by longitudinal data in four large cohorts included in the GAP3 database. The HMM was subsequently used as the basis for a simulation model to evaluate the biopsy strategies previously proposed for each of these cohorts. For the four AS cohorts, the estimated annual progression rate was between 6%-13%. The estimated probability of a biopsy successfully sampling undiagnosed non-favorable risk cancer (biopsy sensitivity) was between 71% and 80%. In the simulation study of patients diagnosed with favorable risk cancer at age 50, the mean number of biopsies performed before age 75 was between 4.11 and 12.60, depending on the biopsy strategy. The mean delay time to detection of non-favorable risk cancer was between 0.38 and 2.17 years. Biopsy undersampling and progression varied considerably across study cohorts. There was no single best biopsy protocol that is optimal for all cohorts, because of the variation in biopsy under-sampling error and annual progression rates across cohorts. All strategies demonstrated diminishing benefits from additional biopsies., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown a 20% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality after 16yr [rate ratio (RR) 0.80], but centers varied by attendance, screen interval, biopsy compliance, contamination in the control arm, and treatments. We used a microsimulation model, calibrated to the ERSPC individual-level data, to predict influence of study features on the results. The relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality would have been somewhat larger with improved study features: increased attendance (90% attendance in all volunteer-based and 70% in all population-based centers, resulting in RR 0.77), a 2-yr screen interval (RR 0.75), and an 80% biopsy compliance (RR 0.79). The RR would have been substantially lower with a 30% attendance (RR 0.92), 40% biopsy compliance (RR 0.90), or 100% contamination (RR 0.85). The variations in results by trial center may reflect differences in study design and performance and results of our simulations highlight the effect of quality indicators in prostate-specific antigen screening in different settings. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the effect of various features of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on its effectiveness. The compliance to PSA testing and those having a biopsy after an elevated PSA substantially influence the prostate cancer mortality., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the first three causes of cancer mortality in Europe. Screening in asymptomatic men (aged 55-69yr) using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is associated with a migration toward lower staged disease and a reduction in cancer-specific mortality. By 20yr after testing, around 100 men need to be screened to prevent one PCa death. While this ratio is smaller than for breast and colon cancer, the long natural history of PCa means many men die from other causes. As such, the nonselective use of PSA testing and radical treatments can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The European Association of Urology (EAU) supports measures to encourage appropriate PCa detection through PSA testing, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. These goals may be achieved using personalized risk-stratified approaches. For diagnosis, the greatest benefit from early detection is likely to come in men assessed using baseline PSA levels at the age of 45yr to individualize screening intervals. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as well as risk calculators based on family history, ethnicity, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume should be considered to triage the need for biopsy, thus reducing the risk of overdiagnosis. For treatment, the EAU advocates balancing patient's life expectancy and cancer's mortality risk when deciding an approach. Active surveillance is encouraged in well-informed patients with low-risk and some intermediate-risk cancers, as it decreases the risks of overtreatment without compromising oncological outcomes. Conversely, the EAU advocates radical treatment in suitable men with more aggressive PCa. Multimodal treatment should be considered in locally advanced or high-grade cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening should be considered at a population level. Men at risk of prostate cancer should have a baseline PSA blood test (eg, at 45yr). The level of this test, combined with family history, ethnicity, and other factors, can be used to determine subsequent follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging scans and novel biomarkers should be used to determine which men need biopsy and how any cancers should be treated., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

For men interested in early detection of prostate cancer, the potential impact on decisional conflict of a decision aid with or without cost compensation for the prostate-specific antigen test will be investigated., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Differential treatment between trial arms has been suggested to bias prostate cancer (PC) mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)., Objective: To quantify the contribution of treatment differences to the observed PC mortality reduction between the screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 14 136 men with PC (SA: 7310; CA: 6826) in the core age group (55-69yr) at 16yr of follow-up., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The outcomes measurements were observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths by treatment allocation in the SA and CA, respectively. Primary treatment allocation was modeled using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for center, age, year, prostate-specific antigen, grade group, and tumor-node-metastasis stage. For each treatment, logistic regression models were fitted for risk of PC death, separately for the SA and CA, and using the same covariates as for the treatment allocation model. Treatment probabilities were multiplied by estimated PC death risks for each treatment based on one arm, and then summed and compared with the observed number of deaths., Results and Limitations: The difference between the observed and estimated treatment distributions (hormonal therapy, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and active surveillance/watchful waiting) in the two arms ranged from -3.3% to 3.3%. These figures, which represent the part of the treatment differences between arms that cannot be explained by clinicopathological differences, are small compared with the observed differences between arms that ranged between 7.2% and 10.1%. The difference between the observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths among men with PC was 0.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1%, 0.2%) when applying the CA model to the SA, had the two groups received identical primary treatment, given their clinical characteristics. When instead applying the SA model to the CA, the difference was, as expected, very similar-0.01% (95% CI -0.3%, 0.2%). Consistency of the results of the models demonstrates the robustness of the modeling approach. As the observed difference between trial arms was 4.2%, our findings suggest that differential treatment explains only a trivial proportion of the main findings of ERSPC. A limitation of the study is that only data on primary treatment were available., Conclusions: Use of prostate-specific antigen remains the predominant explanation for the reduction in PC mortality seen in the ERSPC trial and is not attributable to differential treatment between trial arms., Patient Summary: This study shows that prostate cancer deaths in the European screening trial (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) were prevented because men were diagnosed and treated earlier through prostate-specific antigen screening, and not because of different, or better, treatment in the screening arm compared with the control arm., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation., Design, Setting, and Participants: We compared data from 10296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation., Results and Limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4-28.6%) at 5yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7-39.9%) at 10yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up., Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression., Patient Summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The use of risk calculators predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) on biopsy reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease compared to a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) strategy. Updating these tools using more specific outcome measures and contemporary predictors could potentially lead to further reductions. Our objective was to assess clinical impact of the 4 kallikrein (4K) score, the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC), and the combination of both for predicting csCaP based on the latest International Society of Urological Pathology grading system and cribriform growth pattern., Materials and Methods: Our prospective cohort consisted of 2,872 men from the first screening round in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam; biopsy indication PSA ≥ 3.0. The predictive performance of the 4Kscore, RPCRC, and the combination of RPCRC with 4Kscore were assessed with area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the reduction of unnecessary biopsy and indolent CaP., Results: The csCaP was present in 242 (8%) men, and indolent CaP in 578 (20%). The 4Kscore and RPCRC had similar high AUCs (0.88 vs. 0.87; P = 0.41). The 4Kscore-RPCRC combination improved AUC to 0.89 compared to 4Kscore (P < 0.01) and RPCRC (P < 0.01). The RPCRC and 4Kscore reduced the number of Bx with 42 and 44, respectively, per 100 men at risk compared to a ≥PSA 3.0 strategy without increasing missed csCaP. The RPCRC-4Kscore combination resulted in a slight additional net reduction of 3.3 biopsies per 100 men., Conclusions: The RPCRC and 4Kscore had similar reductions of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. Combination of both models slightly reduced unnecessary biopsies further. Gain in net benefit must, however, be weighed against additional costs and availability of tests., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates., Methods: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials., Results: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0., Conclusions: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: To assess the value of risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D) in reducing unnecessary biopsies without missing Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in men on active surveillance (AS)., Patients and Methods: In all, 210 men on AS with Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer received a first MRI and if indicated [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3] targeted biopsy (TBx) using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion. The MRI was performed 3 months after diagnosis (group A: n = 97), at confirmatory biopsy (group B: n = 39) or at surveillance biopsy after one or more repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsies (TRUS-Bx) (group C: n = 74). The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason score ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer based on MRI ± TBx in groups A, B and C. Biopsy outcomes were stratified for the overall PI-RADS score and PSA-D to identify a subgroup of men in whom a biopsy could have been avoided as no Gleason score upgrading was detected., Results: In all, 134/210 (64%) men had a positive MRI and 51/210 (24%) men had Gleason score upgrading based on MRI-TBx. The percentage of Gleason score upgrading based on MRI-TBx was 23% (22/97), 23% (9/39) and 27% (20/74) in respectively groups A, B and C. Additional Gleason score upgrading detected by TRUS-Bx occurred in 8% (3/39) of men in group B and 6% (1/17) of men who received TRUS-Bx in group C. No Gleason score upgrading was detected by MRI-TBx in men with a PI-RADS score of 3 and a PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL 2 (n = 15), nor by TRUS-Bx in men with a PI-RADS score of 1-3 and a PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL 2 (n = 15)., Conclusion: At least one out of five men on AS with Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer at diagnostic TRUS-Bx show Gleason score upgrading based on first MRI ± TBx at baseline, confirmatory or surveillance biopsy. Men with a PI-RADS score of 1-3 and PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL 2 did not show Gleason score upgrading at MRI ± TBx or TRUS-Bx at each time point of surveillance. Thus risk-stratification based on PI-RADS and PSA-D may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on AS., (© 2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

Purpose of Review: To provide an overview of the current state of the evidence and highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, focusing on biomarkers, risk calculators and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)., Recent Findings: In 2017 there are numerous options to improve early detection as compared to a purely prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based approach. All have strengths and drawbacks. In addition to repeating the PSA and performing clinical work-up (digital rectal examination and estimation of prostate volume), additional tests investigated in the initial biopsy setting are: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, SelectMDx, and Michigan Prostate Score and in the repeat setting: %free PSA, Prostate Health Index, 4-kallikrein score, Prostate Cancer Antigen 3, and ConfirmMDx. Risk calculators are available for both biopsy settings and incorporate clinical data with, or without, biomarkers. mpMRI is an important diagnostic adjunct., Summary: There are numerous tests available that can help increase the specificity of PSA, in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. All coincide with a small decrease in sensitivity of detecting high-grade cancer. Cost effectiveness is crucial. The way forward is a multivariable risk assessment on the basis of readily available clinical data, potentially with the addition of PSA subforms, preferably at low cost. MRI in the prediagnostic setting is promising, but is not ready for 'prime time'.

Guidelines regarding recommendations for PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer are conflicting. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) assigned a grade of D (recommending against screening) for men aged ≥75 years in 2008 and for men of all ages in 2012. Understanding temporal trends in rates of screening before and after the 2012 recommendation in terms of usage patterns in PSA screening, changes in prostate cancer incidence and biopsy patterns, and how the recommendation has influenced physician's and men's attitudes about PSA screening and subsequent ordering of other screening tests is essential within the scope of prostate cancer screening policy. Since the 2012 recommendation, rates of PSA screening decreased by 3-10% in all age groups and across most geographical regions of the USA. Rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have declined in unison, with a shift towards tumours being of higher grade and stage upon detection. Despite the recommendation, some physicians report ongoing willingness to screen appropriately selected men, and many men report intending to continue to ask for the PSA test from their physician. In the coming years, we expect to have an improved understanding of whether these decreased rates of screening will affect prostate cancer metastasis and mortality.

Background: The Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study was initiated a decade ago to study the most optimal selection and follow-up of men on active surveillance (AS)., Objective: We report on 10 yr of follow-up of men on AS in the PRIAS study and evaluate if criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment truly predict unfavorable outcome on subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men with low-risk prostate cancer were included and followed prospectively on AS. Follow-up consisted of regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, digital rectal examinations, and biopsies. Men with Gleason >3+3, more than two positive biopsy cores, or stage higher than cT2 were advised to switch to active treatment (until 2014, a PSA doubling time [PSA DT] of 0-3 yr was also used)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Reclassification rates, treatment after discontinuation, and outcome on RP after discontinuing AS were reported. Regression analysis on the outcome of RP was used to evaluate the predictive value of criteria currently used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analysis were used to report discontinuation rates over time and long-term oncologic end points., Results and Limitations: A total of 5302 men were included in PRIAS across 18 countries. Reclassification rates remained stable on all subsequent biopsies, with 22-33% of men having either Gleason >3+3 or more than two positive cores on any repeat biopsy. At 5 and 10 yr of follow-up, 52% and 73% of men, respectively, had discontinued AS, most of them because of protocol-based reclassification. A third of men undergoing subsequent RP had favorable pathologic tumor features (Gleason 3+3 and pT2). Of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment, more than two positive cores and a PSA DT of 0-3 yr were not predictive of unfavorable pathologic outcome on RP., Conclusions: A substantial group of men discontinued AS without subsequent unfavorable tumor features on RP; therefore, we propose Gleason upgrading and cT3 as the only indicators for an immediate switch to active treatment. Surrogate indicators (eg, more than two positive cores and a fast-rising PSA) should not trigger immediate active treatment but rather further investigation to confirm the suspicion of higher risk disease., Patient Summary: We confirmed the safety of active surveillance as a treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer; however, some changes could be made to the follow-up protocol to safely increase the number of men who remain on active surveillance., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate PSA- and PHI (prostate health index)-based models for prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) and the feasibility of using DRE-estimated prostate volume (DRE-PV) in the models., Methods: This study included 569 Chinese men with PSA 4-10 ng/mL and non-suspicious DRE with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) 10-core prostate biopsies performed between April 2008 and July 2015. DRE-PV was estimated using 3 pre-defined classes: 25, 40, or 60 ml. The performance of PSA-based and PHI-based predictive models including age, DRE-PV, and TRUS prostate volume (TRUS-PV) was analyzed using logistic regression and area under the receiver operating curves (AUC), in both the whole cohort and the screening age group of 55-75., Results: PCa and high-grade PCa (HGPCa) was diagnosed in 10.9 % (62/569) and 2.8 % (16/569) men, respectively. The performance of DRE-PV-based models was similar to TRUS-PV-based models. In the age group 55-75, the AUCs for PCa of PSA alone, PSA with DRE-PV and age, PHI alone, PHI with DRE-PV and age, and PHI with TRUS-PV and age were 0.54, 0.71, 0.76, 0.78, and 0.78, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for HGPCa were higher (0.60, 0.70, 0.85, 0.83, and 0.83). At 10 and 20 % risk threshold for PCa, 38.4 and 55.4 % biopsies could be avoided in the PHI-based model, respectively., Conclusions: PHI had better performance over PSA-based models and could reduce unnecessary biopsies. A DRE-assessed PV can replace TRUS-assessed PV in multivariate prediction models to facilitate clinical use.

Purpose of Review: The aim of this review was to highlight important articles in the field of prostate cancer screening published during 2015 and early 2016. Four major areas were identified for the purpose: screening strategies, post-United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2011-2012, screening trends/patterns, and shared decision making., Recent Findings: Several studies furthered the evidence that screening reduces the risk of metastasis and death from prostate cancer. Multiplex screening strategies are of proven benefit; genetics and MRI need further evaluation. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates declined in men above age of 50 years, as did the overall prostate cancer incidence following the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation against PSA. The consequences of declining screening rates will become apparent in the next few years. More research is needed to identify the most optimal approach to engage in, and implement, an effective shared decision-making in clinical practice., Summary: Data emerging in 2015 provided evidence on the question of how best to screen and brought more steps in the right direction of 'next-generation prostate cancer screening'. Screening is an ongoing process in all men regardless of whether or not they might benefit from early detection and treatment. After the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation, the rates of PSA testing are declining; however, this decline is observed in all men and not solely in those who will not benefit from the screening. The long-term effect of this recommendation might not be as anticipated. More studies are needed on how to implement the best available evidence on who, and when, to screen in clinical practice.

Purpose: To evaluate the utility of percentage of free serum PSA (%fPSA) as a predictor of adverse rebiopsy findings, treatment change and radical prostatectomy (RP) findings in a prospective active surveillance (AS) trial., Methods: Patients enrolled in the global PRIAS study with baseline %fPSA available were included. Putative baseline predictors (e.g. PSA, %fPSA) of adverse rebiopsy findings were explored using logistic regression analysis. Association of variables with treatment change and RP findings over time were evaluated with Cox regression analysis. Active treatment-free survival was assessed with a Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Of 3701 patients recruited to PRIAS, 939 had %fPSA measured at study entry. Four hundred and thirty-eight of them had %fPSA available after 1 year. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. First rebiopsy results were available for 595 patients and of those, 144 (24.2 %) had adverse findings. A total of 283 (30.1 %) patients discontinued surveillance, of those 181 (64.0 %) due to protocol-based reasons. Although median %fPSA values were significantly lower in patients who changed treatment, according to the multivariate regression analysis, initial %fPSA value was not predictive for treatment change or adverse rebiopsy findings. However, the probability of discontinuing AS was significantly lower in patients with "favourable" initial %fPSA characteristics and %fPSA during follow-up (initial %fPSA ≥15 and positive %fPSA velocity) compared to those with "adverse" %fPSA characteristics (initial %fPSA <15 and negative %fPSA velocity)., Conclusions: Diagnostic %fPSA provides no additional prognostic value when compared to other predictors already in use in AS protocols. However, %fPSA velocity during surveillance may aid in predicting the probability for future treatment change.

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., (Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2015 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Context: Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated., Objective: To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS., Evidence Acquisition: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS., Evidence Synthesis: Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up., Conclusions: There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future., Patient Summary: Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has limited accuracy for the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: To assess the value added by percentage of free to total PSA (%fPSA), prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), and a kallikrein panel (4k-panel) to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) multivariable prediction models: risk calculator (RC) 4, including transrectal ultrasound, and RC 4 plus digital rectal examination (4+DRE) for prescreened men., Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants were invited for rescreening between October 2007 and February 2009 within the Dutch part of the ERSPC study. Biopsies were taken in men with a PSA level ≥3.0 ng/ml or a PCA3 score ≥10. Additional analyses of the 4k-panel were done on serum samples., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Outcome was defined as PCa detectable by sextant biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive capabilities of %fPSA, PCA3, 4k-panel, the ERSPC RCs, and their combinations in logistic regression models., Results and Limitations: PCa was detected in 119 of 708 men. The %fPSA did not perform better univariately or added to the RCs compared with the RCs alone. In 202 men with an elevated PSA, the 4k-panel discriminated better than PCA3 when modelled univariately (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78 vs. 0.62; p=0.01). The multivariable models with PCA3 or the 4k-panel were equivalent (AUC: 0.80 for RC 4+DRE). In the total population, PCA3 discriminated better than the 4k-panel (univariate AUC: 0.63 vs. 0.56; p=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the multivariable model with PCA3 (AUC: 0.73) versus the model with the 4k-panel (AUC: 0.71; p=0.18). The multivariable model with PCA3 performed better than the reference model (0.73 vs. 0.70; p=0.02). Decision curves confirmed these patterns, although numbers were small., Conclusions: Both PCA3 and, to a lesser extent, a 4k-panel have added value to the DRE-based ERSPC RC in detecting PCa in prescreened men., Patient Summary: We studied the added value of novel biomarkers to previously developed risk prediction models for prostate cancer. We found that inclusion of these biomarkers resulted in an increase in predictive ability., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Prostate cancer screening depends on a careful balance of benefits, in terms of reduced prostate cancer mortality, and harms, in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to estimate the effect on overdiagnosis of restricting prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing by age and baseline PSA., Methods: Estimates of the effects of age on overdiagnosis were based on population based incidence data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. To investigate the relationship between PSA and overdiagnosis, we used two separate cohorts subject to PSA testing in clinical trials (n = 1,577 and n = 1,197) and a population-based cohort of Swedish men not subject to PSA-screening followed for 25 years (n = 1,162)., Results: If PSA testing had been restricted to younger men, the number of excess cases associated with the introduction of PSA in the US would have been reduced by 85%, 68% and 42% for age cut-offs of 60, 65 and 70, respectively. The risk that a man with screen-detected cancer at age 60 would not subsequently lead to prostate cancer morbidity or mortality decreased exponentially as PSA approached conventional biopsy thresholds. For PSAs below 1 ng/ml, the risk of a positive biopsy is 65 (95% CI 18.2, 72.9) times greater than subsequent prostate cancer mortality., Conclusions: Prostate cancer overdiagnosis has a strong relationship to age and PSA level. Restricting screening in men over 60 to those with PSA above median (>1 ng/ml) and screening men over 70 only in selected circumstances would importantly reduce overdiagnosis and change the ratio of benefits to harms of PSA-screening.

Background: Large randomized screening trials provide an estimation of the effect of screening at a population-based level. The effect of screening for individuals, however, is diluted by nonattendance and contamination in the trial arms., Objective: To determine the prostate cancer (PCa) mortality reduction from screening after adjustment for nonattendance and contamination., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 34,833 men in the core age group, 55-69 yr, were randomized to a screening or control arm in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing was offered to all men in the screening arm at 4-yr intervals. A prostate biopsy was offered to men with an elevated PSA. The primary end point was PCa-specific mortality., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Nonattendance was defined as nonparticipation in the screening arm. Contamination in the control arm was defined as receiving asymptomatic PSA testing or a prostate biopsy in the absence of symptoms. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated with an intention to screen (ITS) analysis and after correction for nonattendance and contamination using a method that preserves the benefits obtained by randomization., Results and Limitations: The ITS analysis resulted in an RR of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.89) in favor of screening at a median follow-up of 13 yr. Correction for both nonattendance and contamination resulted in an RR of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.87) in favor of screening., Conclusions: PCa screening as conducted in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC can reduce the risk of dying from PCa up to 51% for an individual man choosing to be screened repeatedly compared with a man who was not screened. This benefit of screening should be balanced against the harms of overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment., Trial Registration: ISRCTN49127736., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment decisions can be difficult in men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: To evaluate the ability of a panel of four kallikrein markers in blood-total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, intact PSA, and kallikrein-related peptidase 2-to distinguish between pathologically insignificant and aggressive disease on pathologic examination of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as well as to calculate the number of avoidable surgeries., Design, Setting, and Participants: The cohort comprised 392 screened men participating in rounds 1 and 2 of the Rotterdam arm of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Patients were diagnosed with PCa because of an elevated PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml and were treated with RP between 1994 and 2004., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We calculated the accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]) of statistical models to predict pathologically aggressive PCa (pT3-T4, extracapsular extension, tumor volume >0.5cm(3), or any Gleason grade ≥4) based on clinical predictors (age, stage, PSA, biopsy findings) with and without levels of four kallikrein markers in blood., Results and Limitations: A total of 261 patients (67%) had significant disease on pathologic evaluation of the RP specimen. While the clinical model had good accuracy in predicting aggressive disease, reflected in a corrected AUC of 0.81, the four kallikrein markers enhanced the base model, with an AUC of 0.84 (p < 0.0005). The model retained its ability in patients with low-risk and very-low-risk disease and in comparison with the Steyerberg nomogram, a published prediction model. Clinical application of the model incorporating the kallikrein markers would reduce rates of surgery by 135 of 1000 patients overall and 110 of 334 patients with pathologically insignificant disease. A limitation of the present study is that clinicians may be hesitant to make recommendations against active treatment on the basis of a statistical model., Conclusions: Our study provided proof of principle that predictions based on levels of four kallikrein markers in blood distinguish between pathologically insignificant and aggressive disease after RP with good accuracy. In the future, clinical use of the model could potentially reduce rates of immediate unnecessary active treatment., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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 © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives To assess the effect of screening in terms of excess mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Methods A total of 141,578 men aged 55-69 were randomized to systematic screening or usual care in ERSPC sections in Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. 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 diagnosis with PC adjusted for study centre, study arm and study attendance. The excess mortality rates were compared between the two study arms. Results The PC incidence was 9.25 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 5.49 per 1000 person-years in the control arm, relative risk (RR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.76). The excess mortality among men with PC was 0.29 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 0.37 per 1000 person-years in the control arm; the RR for excess mortality was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55-1.08). The absolute risk reduction in the excess mortality was 0.08 per 1000 person-years. The overall mortality was not significantly different between the intervention and the control arms of the study: RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.01). Conclusions Although the reduction in excess mortality was not statistically significant, the between-arm reduction in excess mortality rate was in line with the previously reported 20% reduction in the disease-specific mortality. This finding indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in the ERSPC trial cannot be due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.

Screening for prostate cancer is a controversial topic within the field of urology. The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial did not demonstrate any difference in prostate-cancer-related mortality rates between men screened annually rather than on an 'opportunistic' basis. However, in the world's largest trial to date--the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer--screening every 2-4 years was associated with a 21% reduction in prostate-cancer-related mortality rate after 11 years. Citing the uncertain ratio between potential harm and potential benefit, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against serum PSA screening. Although this ratio has yet to be elucidated, PSA testing--and early tumour detection--is undoubtedly beneficial for some individuals. Instead of adopting a 'one size fits all' approach, physicians are likely to perform personalized risk assessment to minimize the risk of negative consequences, such as anxiety, unnecessary testing and biopsies, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. The PSA test needs to be combined with other predictive factors or be used in a more thoughtful way to identify men at risk of symptomatic or life-threatening cancer, without overdiagnosing indolent disease. A risk-adapted approach is needed, whereby PSA testing is tailored to individual risk.