Search

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.)

Introduction: The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI., Methods and Analysis: The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer., Ethics and Dissemination: ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CMM receives funding from the Prostate Cancer UK, Movember, the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and the NIHR. She receives fees for HIFU proctoring from SonaCare. She has received speaker fees from Astellas and Jannsen. She carries out research into photodynamic therapy supported by Spectracure. ME serves as a consultant/educator/trainer to Sonacare, Exact Imaging, Angiodynamics and Profound Medical., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Diabetic men appear to have a lower risk of prostate cancer. Whether antidiabetic medications are protective or potentially mask prostate cancer by lowering prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels is unclear., Objective: To examine the associations of antidiabetic medication use with (1) PSA levels, (2) frequency of PSA testing, (3) receipt of biopsy following elevated PSA results, and (4) prostate cancer detection at biopsy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based cohort study using data from the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register. Participants were all prostate cancer-free men aged 40 to 79 years residing in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to March 2019., Exposures: One or more prescription for metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin, as recorded in Sweden's National Prescribed Drug Register., Main Outcomes and Measures: Levels of PSA following first exposure to antidiabetic medications were assessed using multivariable linear regression. Frequency of PSA testing was assessed via multivariable Poisson regression. Biopsy following elevated PSA (≥3.0 ng/mL) and prostate cancer detection at biopsy were assessed via multivariable logistic regression., Results: The cohort of 564 666 men (median [range] age, 65 [40-79] years) consisted of 4583 men initially exposed to metformin, 1104 exposed to sulfonylurea, and 978 exposed to insulin who were age matched with unexposed men (1:5). Exposed men had lower median (interquartile range) PSA levels before starting antidiabetic medications compared with unexposed men (1.2 [0.7-2.5] vs 1.6 [0.8-3.2] ng/mL). After accounting for baseline differences, PSA levels did not vary from those of unexposed men following exposure to antidiabetic medications. Frequency of PSA testing was higher for those receiving metformin (rate ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and sulfonylurea (rate ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08) but was lower for those receiving insulin (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77- 0.81). Likelihood of biopsy after elevated PSA was lower among men receiving metformin (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and insulin (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). There were no differences in prostate cancer detection at biopsy, regardless of PSA levels that triggered the biopsy., Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings do not support the hypothesis that the inverse association between diabetes and prostate cancer is mediated through antidiabetic medications lowering PSA levels to mask prostate cancer. They do suggest potential detection bias due to fewer biopsies among men receiving antidiabetic medications, which may explain the lower prostate cancer risk in men with diabetes.

Background: Patient-related factors such as concern about cancer are believed to influence both men's decisions to undergo prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and to have definitive treatment if diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer (PCa). The potential link between screening frequency and choice of active surveillance (AS) for low risk disease has not been studied previously. Our aim was to investigate whether there is any association between PCa screening frequency or previous negative prostate biopsy and uptake of AS among men with low risk PCa., Methods: This register-based study included all men ≤75 years from Stockholm who were diagnosed with low risk PCa from 2008 to 2014 (n = 4336). Pre-diagnostic PSA testing and biopsy histories were obtained from the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register, a population-based register for the Stockholm country. The association between previous screening/biopsy history and AS uptake (based on primary treatment recorded in the National Prostate Cancer Register) was examined using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Forty seven percent of men with low risk PCa underwent AS. Uptake was associated with older age, very low risk disease, more recent diagnosis and absence of family history. None of the screening/biopsy measures (testing frequency, mean interval, PSA velocity, highest pre-diagnostic PSA or prior negative biopsy) were associated with uptake of AS among men with low risk PCa. Generalisability to settings with different policies and practices may be limited., Conclusion: We found no evidence that screening frequency and negative biopsy influence uptake of AS among Swedish men with low risk PCa. Further research is required to determine factors that still present barriers for men taking up AS.

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.)

Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) has potential to increase the diagnostic utility of PSA, yet has had poor uptake in clinical practice. We aimed to determine the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging-derived PSAD (MR-PSAD) in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy (TPSB) outcomes., Materials and Methods: Men presenting for primary TPSB from 2007 to 2014 were considered. Histological outcomes were assessed and defined as: presence of any cancer or significant cancer defined as presence of Gleason 4 and/or maximum tumour core length (MCCL) ≥ 4 mm (G4); or Gleason 4 and/or MCCL ≥ 6 mm (G6). Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated to compare MR-PSAD and PSA., Results: Six hundred fifty-nine men were evaluated with mean age 62.5 ± 9 years, median PSA 6.7 ng/ml (range 0.5-40.0), prostate volume 40 cc (range 7-187) and MR-PSAD 0.15 ng/ml/cc (range 0.019-1.3). ROC area under the curve (95% CI) was significantly better for MR-PSAD than PSA for all cancer definitions (p < 0.001): 0.73 (0.70-0.76) versus 0.61 (0.57-0.64) for any cancer; 0.75 (0.71-0.78) versus 0.66 (0.62-0.69) for G4; and 0.77 (0.74-0.80) versus 0.68 (0.64-0.71) for G6. Sensitivities for MR-PSAD < 0.1 ng/ml/cc were 85.0, 89.9 and 91.9% for any, G4 and G6 cancer, respectively., Conclusion: MR-PSAD may be better than total PSA in determining risk of positive biopsy outcome. Its use may improve risk stratification and reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Objectives: To investigate the association between factors influencing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing prevalence including prostate cancer risk factors (age, ethnicity, obesity) and non-risk factors (social deprivation and comorbidity)., Setting: A cross-sectional database of 136 inner London general practices from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2014., Participants: Men aged ≥40 years without prostate cancer were included (n=150 481)., Primary Outcome: Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the association between PSA testing and age, ethnicity, social deprivation, body mass index (BMI) and comorbidity while adjusting for age, benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostatitis and tamsulosin or finasteride use., Results: PSA testing prevalence was 8.2% (2013-2014), and the mean age was 54 years (SD 11). PSA testing was positively associated with age (OR 70-74 years compared to 40-44 years: 7.34 (95% CI 6.82 to 7.90)), ethnicity (black) (OR compared to white: 1.78 (95% CI 1.71 to 1.85)), increasing BMI and cardiovascular comorbidity. Testing was negatively associated with Chinese ethnicity and with increasing social deprivation., Conclusions: PSA testing among black patients was higher compared to that among white patients, which differs from lower testing rates seen in previous studies. PSA testing was positively associated with prostate cancer risk factors and non-risk factors. Association with non-risk factors may increase the risk of unnecessary invasive diagnostic procedures., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

This chapter aims to serve as a quick glance outlining an overall picture of mainstream thoughts, and to serve as a point of departure for more thorough discussions. The introduction of PSA testing has immensely complicated research in prostate cancer epidemiology and biology and added new clinical and biological domains. As for many cancers, age and ethnic origin are the strongest known risk factors. While migrant studies imply that environment and/or personal life style is important, epidemiological studies have failed to establish any strong leads. Despite the known androgen dependence of prostate cancer, there is little to support that circulating levels of androgens, estrogens or 5-alpha-reductase are associated with risk of developing the disease. However, a consistent finding is a positive association with levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1). Prostate cancer is one of the cancers most strongly related to inherited susceptibility, even when taking into account that family history of prostate cancer triggers PSA testing among relatives. A number of somatic genetic alterations (amplifications, deletions, point mutations, translocations) are associated with prostate cancer risk. Findings for alterations in FASN, HPN, AMACR and MYC have been fairly consistent. Recent research shows that the notion of "hormone-independent prostate cancer" has to be revised: most prostate cancers remain dependent on androgen receptor signalling also after progression despite traditional androgen deprivation therapy. Traditional markers of stage and type of disease still play a major role for prognostication and treatment decisions. Prostate cancer is one of the few cancers where patients have been recommended watchful waiting or active surveillance. This provides opportunities for studies of natural history of the disease. The understanding of prostate cancer aetiology and natural history has progressed slowly. However, the current situation is positively challenging and opens up possibilities for fruitful research.

BackgroundCurrently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.Methods13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.Results27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.

BackgroundThe optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database.Materials and methodsIntensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers' protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity.ResultsOut of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-1.83; p

Objective: To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods: Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low–intermediate‐risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage 30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment. Results: Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow‐up biopsy findings. The median follow‐up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34–0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23–0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow‐up biopsies. Conclusion: A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow‐up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa.Methods: Demographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort.Discussion: A relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79-3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94-3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53-0.98).Conclusion: An organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient's diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a model and methodology for predicting the risk of Gleason upgrading in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS) and using the predicted risks to create risk‐based personalised biopsy schedules as an alternative to one‐size‐fits‐all schedules (e.g. annually). Furthermore, to assist patients and doctors in making shared decisions on biopsy schedules, by providing them quantitative estimates of the burden and benefit of opting for personalised vs any other schedule in AS. Lastly, to externally validate our model and implement it along with personalised schedules in a ready to use web‐application. Patients and Methods: Repeat prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) measurements, timing and results of previous biopsies, and age at baseline from the world's largest AS study, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS; 7813 patients, 1134 experienced upgrading). We fitted a Bayesian joint model for time‐to‐event and longitudinal data to this dataset. We then validated our model externally in the largest six AS cohorts of the Movember Foundation's third Global Action Plan (GAP3) database (>20 000 patients, 27 centres worldwide). Using the model predicted upgrading risks; we scheduled biopsies whenever a patient's upgrading risk was above a certain threshold. To assist patients/doctors in the choice of this threshold, and to compare the resulting personalised schedule with currently practiced schedules, along with the timing and the total number of biopsies (burden) planned, for each schedule we provided them with the time delay expected in detecting upgrading (shorter is better). Results: The cause‐specific cumulative upgrading risk at the 5‐year follow‐up was 35% in PRIAS, and at most 50% in the GAP3 cohorts. In the PRIAS‐based model, PSA velocity was a stronger predictor of upgrading (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.93–2.99) than the PSA level (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89–1.11). Our model had a moderate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.6–0.7) in the validation cohorts. The prediction error was moderate (0.1–0.2) in theGAP3 cohorts where the impact of the PSA level and velocity on upgrading risk was similar to PRIAS, but large (0.2–0.3) otherwise. Our model required re‐calibration of baseline upgrading risk in the validation cohorts. We implemented the validated models and the methodology for personalised schedules in a web‐application (http://tiny.cc/biopsy). Conclusions: We successfully developed and validated a model for predicting upgrading risk, and providing risk‐based personalised biopsy decisions in AS of prostate cancer. Personalised prostate biopsies are a novel alternative to fixed one‐size‐fits‐all schedules, which may help to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies, while maintaining cancer control. The model and schedules made available via a web‐application enable shared decision‐making on biopsy schedules by comparing fixed and personalised schedules on total biopsies and expected time delay in detecting upgrading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopy has been investigated as a potential risk factor for prostate cancer. IgE antibodies may be major players in protective responses against tumours, through engendering antigen presentation and enhancing adaptive immune responses targeted towards a specific allergen, but potentially also against tumour-associated antigens such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We therefore cross-sectionally investigated associations between circulating levels of PSA and IgE in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006. Methods: We focused on all men aged 40+ years with measurements for PSA and IgE, and no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer ( n = 1312). We estimated the association between total and specific IgE concentration and levels of PSA with logistic regression models, adjusted for age, ethnicity/race, education, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), physical activity status, and history of asthma. Results: Both total IgE and the sum of specific IgE were inversely associated with the risk of having PSA levels ≥10 ng/mL, though most findings were not statistically significant. The odds ratios for the second and third tertile of total IgE as compared to the first were 0.21 (95% CI 0.06-0.72) and 0.42 (0.08-2.31). The odds ratio for sum of abnormal specific IgE measurements was 0.77 (0.44-1.34). Conclusion: Despite statistical insignificance, the observed trend warrants further research given the increasing evidence of the role of atopy and IgE antibodies in protective responses against tumours. A lifecourse approach of measuring IgE, specific subtypes, and other markers of the humoral immune system (i.e. IgG) could shed more light on its potential anti-cancer characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1987, the first Regional Prostate Cancer Register was set up in the South-East health-care region of Sweden. Other health-care regions joined and since 1998 virtually all prostate cancer (PCa) cases are registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden to provide data for quality assurance, bench marking and clinical research. NPCR includes data on tumour stage, Gleason score, serum level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and primary treatment. In 2008, the NPCR was linked to a number of other population-based registers by use of the personal identity number. This database named Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) has now been extended with more cases, longer follow-up and a selection of two control series of men free of PCa at the time of sampling, as well as information on brothers of men diagnosed with PCa, resulting in PCBaSe 2.0. This extension allows for studies with case–control, cohort or longitudinal case-only design on aetiological factors, pharmaceutical prescriptions and assessment of long-term outcomes. The NPCR covers >96% of all incident PCa cases registered by the Swedish Cancer Register, which has an underreporting of <3.7%. The NPCR is used to assess trends in incidence, treatment and outcome of men with PCa. Since the national registers linked to PCBaSe are complete, studies from PCBaSe 2.0 are truly population based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To develop and internally validate a nomogram using biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (B-MRI)-derived variables for the prediction of prostate cancer at transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy (TPSB).Subjects/patients and Methods: Consecutive patients referred to our institution with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA), abnormal prostate examination, or persistent suspicion of prostate cancer after previous transrectal biopsy between July 2012 and November 2015 were reviewed from a prospective database. All patients underwent prebiopsy B-MRI with T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences, followed by 24 to 40 core TPSB with additional targeted cores using cognitive registration. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of prostate cancer outcomes. Multivariable coefficients were used to construct 2 MRI-based nomograms to predict any and significant (Gleason 4 or maximum cancer core length ≥6mm) prostate cancer at TPSB. Bootstrap resamples were used for internal validation. Accuracy was assessed by calculating the concordance index.Results: In total, 615 men were included in the study. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 317 (51.5%) men with significant cancer diagnosed in 237 (38.5%) men. Age, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, PSA, PSA density, and primary biopsy were predictors of prostate cancer at TPSB on univariable analysis (P<0.0001). PSA showed strong correlation with PSA density and was excluded. The remaining variables were all independent predictors of prostate cancer on multivariable analysis (P<0.0001) and used to generate the nomograms. Both nomograms showed good discrimination for prostate cancer, with a concordance index of 87% for any cancer and 92% for significant disease. Using a nomogram-derived probability threshold of<15%, 111 (18.0%) biopsies can be saved, at the expense of 3 missed significant prostate cancers.Conclusions: These internally validated MR-based nomograms were able to accurately predict TPSB outcomes for prostate cancer, especially significant disease. Our findings support the combination of prebiopsy MRI results and clinical factors as part of the biopsy decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]