Search

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/mL2, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Introduction: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. Methods: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). Results: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. Conclusion: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To perform a comparison and external validation of three models predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) and three models predicting prostate cancer (PCa)‐specific mortality (PCSM) in a screening setting, i.e. patients with screening‐detected PCa (S‐PCa) and in those with clinically detected PCa (C‐PCa). Subjects and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 795 men with S‐PCa, from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam, and 1123 men with C‐PCa initially treated with RP. The discriminative ability of the models was assessed according to the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver‐operating characteristic, and calibration was assessed graphically using calibration plots. Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow‐up for the S‐PCa group was 10.4 (6.8–14.3) years and for the C‐PCa group it was 8.8 (4.8–12.9) years. A total of 123 men with S‐PCa (15%) and 389 men with C‐PCa (35%) experienced BCR. Of the men with S‐PCa and BCR, 24 (20%) died from PCa and 29 (23%) died from other causes. Of the men with C‐PCa and BCR, 68 (17%) died from PCa and 105 (27%) died from other causes. The discrimination of the models predicting BCR or PCSM was higher for men with S‐PCa (AUC: BCR 0.77–0.84, PCSM 0.60–0.77) than for the men with C‐PCa (AUC: BCR 0.75–0.79, PCSM 0.51–0.68) as a result of the similar patient characteristics of the men with S‐PCa in the present study and those of the cohorts used to develop these models. The risk of BCR was typically overestimated, while the risk of PCSM was typically underestimated. Conclusion: Prediction models for BCR showed good discrimination and reasonable calibration for both men with S‐PCa and men with C‐PCa, and even better discrimination for men with S‐PCa. For PCSM, the evaluated models are not applicable in both settings of this Dutch cohort as a result of substantial miscalibration. This warrants caution when using these models to communicate future risks in other clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Abstract: Background: Inconclusive test results often occur after prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), leading to uncertainty on whether, how, and when to repeat testing. Objective: To develop and validate a prediction tool for the risk of PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen. Design, setting, and participants: We analyzed data from 15 791 screen-negative men aged 55–70 yr at the initial screening round of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Follow-up and repeat screening at 4 yr showed either no PCa, low-risk PCa, or potentially high-risk PCa (defined as clinical stage >T2b and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or PSA ≥10.0 ng/ml). A multinomial logistic regression analysis included initial screening data on age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), family history, prostate volume, and having had a previous negative biopsy. The 4-yr risk predictions were validated with additional follow-up data up to 8 yr after initial screening. Results and limitations: Positive family history and, especially, PSA level predicted PCa, whereas a previous negative biopsy or a large prostate volume reduced the likelihood of future PCa. The risk of having PCa 4 yr after an initially negative screen was 3.6% (interquartile range: 1.0–4.7%). Additional 8-yr follow-up data confirmed these predictions. Although data were based on sextant biopsies and a strict protocol-based biopsy indication, we suggest that men with a low predicted 4-yr risk (eg, ≤1.0%) could be rescreened at longer intervals or not at all, depending on competing risks, while men with an elevated 4-yr risk (eg, ≥5%) might benefit from immediate retesting. These findings need to be validated externally. Conclusions: This 4-yr future risk calculator, based on age, PSA, DRE, family history, prostate volume, and previous biopsy status, may be a promising tool for reducing uncertainty, unnecessary testing, and overdiagnosis of PCa. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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

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

Background The incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially since it became common practice to screen asymptomatic men for the disease. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was initiated in 1993 to determine how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening affects prostate cancer mortality. Variations in the screening algorithm, such as the interval between screening rounds, likely influence the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of the screened population. Methods We compared the number and characteristics of interval cancers, defined as those diagnosed during the screening interval but not detected by screening, in men in the screening arm of the ERSPC who were aged 55-65 years at the time of the first screening and were participating through two centers of the ERSPC: Gothenburg (2-year screening interval, n = 4202) and Rotterdam (4-year screening interval, n = 13301). All participants who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through December 31, 2005, but at most 10 years after the initial screening were ascertained by linkage with the national cancer registries. A potentially life-threatening (aggressive) interval cancer was defined as one with at least one of the following characteristics at diagnosis: stage M1 or N1, plasma PSA concentration greater than 20.0 ng/mL, or Gleason score greater than 7. We used Mantel Cox regression to assess differences between rates of interval cancers and aggressive interval cancers at the two centers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results The 10-year cumulative incidence of all prostate cancers in Rotterdam versus Gothenburg was 1118 (8.41%) versus 552 (13.14%) (P<.001), the cumulative incidence of interval cancer was 57 (0.43%) versus 31 (0.74%) (P = .51), and the cumulative incidence of aggressive interval cancer was 15 (0.11%) versus 5 (0.12%) (P= .72). Conclusion The rate of interval cancer, especially aggressive interval cancer, was low in this study. The 2-year screening interval had higher detection rates than the 4-year interval but did not lead to lower rates of interval and aggressive interval prostate cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening for prostate cancer (PCa) results in a favorable stage shift. However, even if screening did not result in a clinically apparent lower stage or grade, it might still lead to less disease recurrence after treatment with curative intent (radical prostatectomy [RP] and radiation therapy [RT]) because the tumor had less time to develop outside the prostate. The outcome after treatment could also differ because of variations in treatment quality (eg, radiation dosage/adjuvant hormonal therapy). To test these hypotheses, we compared differences in the treatment quality of the screening and control arms of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam and disease-free survival (DFS) after curative treatment in PCa patients with similar stage and grade. A total of 2595 men were initially treated with RP or RT. In the control arm, RT was more often combined with hormonal therapy; treatment dosage was often ≥69 Gy. This most likely resulted from changes over time in treatment that coincided with the later detection in the control arm. DFS was higher in the screening arm in all risk groups. After correction for lead time, these differences were minimal, however. We concluded that treatment quality differed between the screening and control arms of the ERSPC Rotterdam. RT quality was especially superior in the control arm with higher dosages and more often RT in combination with hormonal therapy. Despite these differences favoring the control arm, DFS differences were minimal. Patient summary We looked at differences in prostate cancer (PCa) treatment and outcome after PCa treatment in men diagnosed after screening and men diagnosed after normal clinical practice. Treatment differed with superior treatment given to men diagnosed in normal clinical practice. We propose a likely explanation for this apparently counterintuitive finding (progressive insight combined with, on average, a later detection of tumors in unscreened men). Although unscreened men received better treatment, this advantage seemed to be outweighed by the advantage associated with the earlier detection, on average, of the tumor in screened men. Trial registration ISRCTN49127736 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]